[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11501-S11519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BROADCAST MEDIA
OWNERSHIP RULE
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume the consideration of S.J. Res. 17, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 17) disapproving the rules
submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with
respect to broadcast media ownership.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10:45 is equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees.
Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Texas.
Before yielding, let me just briefly say, this resolution of
disapproval dealing with the rules on broadcast ownership by the
Federal Communications Commission is a rarely used----
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the Senator from North Dakota granting
himself time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is 30 minutes granted to each side,
as I understand it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10:45 is equally divided.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me grant myself such time as I may
consume. Then I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I was simply making the point that this is a resolution
of disapproval. It is rarely used in the Senate. I think this is only
the second time it has been used. But this is a critically important
issue. We will have a number of speakers describing why this resolution
of disapproval has been brought to the floor of the Senate.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
[[Page S11502]]
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for the
resolution that would disapprove the FCC ruling of June 2. In 1996, we
passed the Telecommunications Act which said Congress should work
toward deregulating the media. We charged the FCC with ensuring the
protection of competition, diversity, and localism.
I think the rule that came out does the opposite. It does not protect
the localism and the diversity, particularly in the newspaper and
television markets. We must turn back the entire rule, even if we agree
with part of it, in order to tell the FCC to go back and start again.
I think the FCC could come up with another rule which would have some
of the components of its June 2 rule, along with taking out parts that
many of us believe actually will hurt localism.
There are 100 Senators in this body. Probably each one has a
different view of what would be best in the media. Overall, I think it
is important for us to be more cautious rather than less cautious,
because what can happen if you lower the number of voices in the media,
and companies make investments based on the rules at the time, is
later, down the road, if you determine that, in fact, we have lowered
the number of voices in the media--and it is to the detriment of the
consuming public--then I don't think you should penalize the companies
that made decisions based on the rules at the time.
I think stability in regulations is a good business principle. I
think if you look at the particular part of the rule that deals with
newspaper/television cross-ownership, you have the worst part of the
decision and the one that concerns me the most. And we have examples
because three companies were grandfathered when the rules were made on
cross-ownership. So we have seen what can happen in a local market when
a company is allowed to own the only newspaper in town plus the major
television station in town, and then perhaps even radio.
I believe radio is pretty diversified. I do not think we have a
problem with the number of voices in radio. My concern is ownership of
the only newspaper in a market plus a major television station in the
market. And we have examples of that.
In Dallas, we have one company that owns the only newspaper in town
plus the largest ABC television affiliate, which has the largest market
share of viewers for all editions of the news.
In Atlanta, we have one company that has the only newspaper in town
that is a regular newspaper. It also owns the major television station
in town, one of the Nation's top performing ABC affiliates, and it also
happens to own 25 percent of the radio market. So I think that is a
pretty alarming amount of concentration.
Maybe they do a good job. But what we are talking about is not
Atlanta. We are not talking about Dallas. They do good jobs in many
respects. What we are talking about is other cities and allowing this
kind of concentration to pop up all over the country--the only
newspaper in town plus the major television station.
In the FCC's own poll, it showed that 74 percent of the people in a
community get their local news from a combination of television and
newspaper--74 percent. If you have one company owning the newspaper and
the major television station, you have a concentration that could be
unhealthy. If it is unhealthy, it will be too late to go back and
retrofit because these companies will make these investments based on
the rules of the time.
We should proceed with caution. I think we should overturn this rule,
ask the FCC to go back to the drawing board and take more testimony.
They had one hearing--one hearing--before they came out with this rule.
Two of the members of the Commission were so concerned that they went
out across the country and had hearings of their own. But even though
there was a lot of testimony, it does not appear that the FCC took that
testimony into account when they made this rule of June 2. In fact,
those two members voted the other way.
They had heard the people speak, and they were concerned about this
kind of concentration.
So whether you agree in part with the FCC or not at all, I hope you
will support the turning back of the rule so that we will give the FCC
a chance to go back to the drawing board, hear what Congress says,
hopefully hear more from the public, and come out with rules
particularly in the area of newspaper/television cross-ownership that I
think should continue the ban.
Congress passed the law in 1996, giving the responsibility to the
FCC. Some people say: Well, why is Congress getting involved? Well, it
is Congress's responsibility to get involved with regulators when the
regulators do not implement the law that Congress passed when they were
given the responsibility to do just that. It would be an abdication of
our responsibility if a majority of Congress disagreed with part of the
ruling that we would not take control of the decision. We are the
elected representatives. The FCC is an appointed body to which we have
delegated responsibility to make rules. If we do not agree with the
entire rule, it is our responsibility to act, and that is why the
Congressional Review Act was passed.
I want to talk for a minute about what this is not. I was amazed,
because I think very highly of the Wall Street Journal in most
respects--in almost every respect--but they had an editorial last
Friday that said if we turn back the rule on cross-ownership of
newspapers and television, somehow this is going to bring back a review
of the fairness doctrine.
I do not support the fairness doctrine. I think radio is quite
diversified. I think the voices that are coming into radio are very
healthy. I think talk radio has given voice to the silent majority. The
last thing this has anything to do with is the fairness doctrine, and
yet my friend Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal somehow tied
the fairness doctrine to a newspaper/television cross-ownership issue.
Letting one entity own the only newspaper in town and the major
television station in town is lowering the number of voices in the
media, not increasing the number. So while some people are more
concerned about the 35 to 45 percent, I am focused on the newspaper/
television ownership that I think affects our country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will close by saying that when we are talking about
lowering the number of voices in the media, we should proceed with
caution. Voting for this resolution of review says to the FCC: You went
too far in some respects--not every respect. We may disagree on the
areas, but you need to listen more to Congress and to the people who
have spoken.
I hope people will vote yes, and I hope the FCC will be responsive.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator speaking for or against?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am speaking for.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think appropriately at this point,
Senator McCain in opposition will yield time and then I will be happy
to yield time to the Senator from Wisconsin at an appropriate time.
Mr. McCAIN. How much time does the Senator from Louisiana wish?
Mr. BREAUX. A couple minutes--3 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. President, I will just make a couple of comments in opposition to
the resolution because I think the resolution is sort of a broad-brush
approach that takes down everything the FCC has recommended, things
that make sense that are good and also things about which some people
may have questions. It really is a resolution that assumes, in my
opinion, that if things are small, they are necessarily good; if things
are big, they are necessarily bad.
I think particularly as this is clearly spelled out with regard to
part of the FCC's rule that deals with the question of television
ownership, the rule from the FCC basically allowed the television
stations to move up to a 45-percent-of-viewer cap before they would be
[[Page S11503]]
prohibited from owning additional television stations.
It seems to me that if you look at media concentration now, you have
1,721 television stations in the United States and the networks only
own a very small percentage of those stations. If you consider the
people who watch the stations, you will find also that the viewership
of these network-owned stations, indeed, is very small.
It is not as if a couple of networks have all the viewers and are
therefore monopolizing what people see and there is no diversity. That
is simply not the fact at all. If you look at Viacom, which owns CBS,
in prime time viewing, they have about 3.4 percent--3.4 percent of the
total TV households. News Corp, which owns Fox, has about 3.1 percent.
General Electric, which owns NBC, has 2.8 percent. And Disney, which
has ABC stations, has about 1.5 percent of the total TV households
watching their network programming in prime time.
The problem with the argument that the cap is somehow going to change
things and make a concentration of ownership of what people see makes
no sense whatsoever, because the way it is currently measured, stations
that are in large television markets are assumed to have everybody in
the market watching their stations.
A station that is owned by the network that happens to have a station
in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, New York, or Chicago probably exceeds a
cap of 35 percent of the potential viewing audience, but in reality
they may have only a very small number of people in those cities
actually watching them.
So the standard of measurement that we use is totally illogical. It
would be like saying an automobile dealer in New York has 6 percent of
the total sales in the United States because New York is about 6
percent of the market. That would be fine if the automobile dealer sold
every car that is bought in New York, but that is not the case. There
are probably literally thousands of other competitors in that market.
The same thing is true in the television market. As an example, an
ABC station in Los Angeles does not have everybody in the Los Angeles
market watching their station. There are probably 200 to 300 additional
stations that a viewer can watch in the evenings and look at a diverse
range of programs that happen to be available.
So the argument that because a station happens to have a tower in a
large city it has all the viewers in that city is illogical at best and
misleading in fact.
Another point is when we look at the amount of diversity that
networks give, obviously the studies have shown they, in fact, offer
far more local programming than nonnetwork-owned stations. Those facts
are clear. They are indisputable.
I think what we do in saying we are going to throw out what the FCC
has done makes no sense. The network-owned stations, in fact, show
about 37 percent more local news than locally owned stations do. So I
argue that this resolution be voted down.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of S.J. Res. 17,
the bipartisan resolution of disapproval which would overturn the
Federal Communications Commission's new rules on broadcast media
ownership. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure
because I believe the FCC has acted in gross disregard of its mandate,
of good public policy, and of the will of the American people.
When the public became aware that the Federal Communications
Commission was considering new rules on media consolidation earlier
this year, the explosion of concern was immediate, heartfelt, and
unprecedented. Close to three-quarters of a million people registered
their views with the FCC before it issued its decision, more than for
any proceeding in its history. Public opinion was almost unanimous in
opposition to further relaxation of media ownership restrictions.
So how did the FCC respond to this clear statement of the will of the
people? With the back of its hand. Only one official public hearing was
held. This was more than carelessness or bureaucratic inertia. This was
simple disdain for the public in whose interest the FCC by statute is
required to act.
Among the many letters I have received on this issue was one from
Nicholas Dzubay, a Republican alderman on the city council of Barron,
WI. Alderman Dzubay said his area's radio stations were suffocating
under the control of a single corporation. He hopes we will not allow
television and other broadcast media in his area to be monopolized in
the same way.
I was also particularly struck by a letter from the Reverend Robert
Stiefvater, the Vocations Director for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. He
wrote:
I find it very difficult to get news into our local market
here in Southeastern Wisconsin. The FCC's June 2 decision to
radically weaken the remaining ownership rules will
unacceptably harm my ability, the Archdiocese's and its
community's ability to receive and distribute local
independent programming.
If any of us doubts the dangers of the road down which the FCC wants
to send us, the story of American radio stands as a powerful warning.
Unprecedented consolidation followed the Telecommunications Act of
1996, but the real story is told over the airwaves. Radio does not
sound like it used to. Like most of us in the Senate, I travel a lot,
and wherever I go, radio stations sound more and more alike. Why?
Because they are no longer programmed by local DJs but by executives at
corporate headquarters hundreds of miles away.
As we begin to examine the issue of file-sharing, and look for ways
to protect copyright owners and artists from infringement of the
copyrights on works they struggled to create, we should keep in mind
that there used to be a time when American young people heard new music
on the radio, when they explored the variety of musical styles and
genres by flipping channels. DJs used to make a name for themselves by
playing new artists, or taking changes on records other DJs had
overlooked. New local programmers do not have the freedom to deviate
from the corporate playlist, and young people are turning off their
radios and booting up file-sharing programs like Kazaa.
The homogenization of American radio is a grim predictor of the
consequences of deregulation. If allowed to stand, the FCC rules will
ravage the independence and character of other forms of media, from
television to newspapers, the way radio has already been ravaged. This
resolution is our chance to say no.
If this resolution of disapproval passes, I hope the FCC will finally
understand how seriously we in Congress feel about this issue. I hope
the FCC gets the message. They did not just make an honest mistake.
They did not just misinterpret a complicated or ambiguous statute. They
headed off in entirely the wrong direction. They ignored the will of
the American people. That is why I will support this resolution, and I
urge my colleagues to do so as well.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Nevada.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the resolution
that we have before us today. I will make a few points that are being
overlooked in this debate. First, when the original ideas for this cap
on percentage of media ownership were put into place, they were put
into place because of the principle that we did not want a small group
of people owning our airwaves to the point where they would be able to
control thought, whether it is political thought or any other kinds of
thought, in the United States. So when these were put into place, we
had basically three networks.
When I was growing up, there virtually was no cable and everybody had
over-the-air broadcast television. We had the three stations, and
whatever were on those three stations is what one watched. We were
lucky to have one or two, maybe three, radio stations, especially if we
were not in a major media market.
[[Page S11504]]
The reality of today is that we not only have the over-the-air
broadcast with the three networks, we also have Fox, UPN, and others,
but we have systems whereby the vast majority of the homes in America
can either get cable or some kind of a direct satellite TV system that
has hundreds of stations which provide news, which provide
entertainment, which provide all kinds of information.
In media markets, for instance, where I live in Las Vegas, NV,
someone cannot turn the dial without getting a new radio station, both
AM and FM. The choices are incredible. Other types of information we
have coming into our household today include the Internet. Anybody can
set up Web sites or news information-sharing sources. That is becoming
a larger part of how people get their information.
Other than the major media outlets, there is the Drudge Report and
other places on the Internet where people are getting information. The
point is that there are so many more places for information to be had
today than when these rules at 25-percent caps were initially put into
place.
The other major point I make is that what we are talking about is
potential viewership. Right now, the cap is set at 35 percent. It wants
to be raised to 45 percent. I believe the FCC tinkered a little bit
around the edges. This is not the tidal wave of change that people are
talking about. This is a minor change in that it is potential
viewership, it is how many homes can be reached. It is not how many
people are watching a station at any one time. It is how much potential
reach can one have into the home?
So we are not only saying it does not matter how many choices one
has, it only matters how many homes can somebody potentially reach. It
does not matter if somebody reaches 100 percent of the homes, as long
as they have plenty of other choices. We should be making sure there
are plenty of choices. When people choose which station they watch,
they should be free to choose whatever stations they want.
We have also heard mention in this debate about cross-ownership with
newspapers. One of the big complaints I hear about localism is that a
lot of the TV stations today do not cover local politics. We know when
there is cross-ownership there are more resources, especially in
smaller media markets where necessarily TV stations or the newspapers
do not have the kind of resources to put good reporters on the beat and
they do not cover as much local politics. When there is cross-
ownership, we see 50 percent more local news and public affairs
programming, and an important thing is that local politics is covered.
This is one of the big gripes I had in my last few campaigns, that the
local TV stations--whether they are owned inside the State or outside
the State, it was the same thing--didn't cover local politics enough.
I happen to be a Republican. In Las Vegas, NV, these two entities I
am going to talk about lean more to the left. There is a TV station in
cross-ownership with one of the newspapers in Las Vegas and, since they
have been in existence, the coverage of local politics, not only by
them but also by their competitors, has increased dramatically. I think
that is good. That is more localism. There is cross-ownership there,
but that is localism.
I think the precautions the FCC has put into place on cross-
ownership, where you have to have a certain number of TV stations
within a market if there is only one major newspaper, are the right
kind of precautions to put in.
The point is, are we giving people choice? Where they choose to view
is up to them. We should not be in the business of regulating what they
watch, what they read, and who owns those, if we have enough choices in
an area. I actually believe the FCC could have gone farther than they
went. This is a very conservative move they have made today. If we are
starting to be in the business of regulating how many people you can
attract to your television stations, then we are starting to regulate
whether you are getting too popular. That seems to be wrongheaded, in
my opinion.
It seems to be right that if you have a couple of gas stations in an
area, as long as you have choice among the gas stations, that is the
important aspect. You don't want a monopoly saying this is the only gas
station to which you can go. If we have 200 different gas stations, it
doesn't matter whether Exxon reaches 100 percent of the cities in the
United States. If there are 200 different gas stations in each one of
the markets around the country, who cares? Because there would be
competition to make sure Exxon is keeping its gas at the right price;
otherwise, they would not be able to compete.
That is the same thing we have here. It really doesn't matter, in my
opinion, whether ABC or NBC covers the entire United States. If there
are 200 active choices just on television to be able to choose from,
then let people choose where they are going to watch based on their
remote control or based on how they flip channels. That seems to be the
right kind of choices America should be all about.
We are in this fear. There are some on the right and there are some
on the left who are afraid that either liberals or the conservatives
are going to control too much of the media and control too much thought
in one regard. Whichever side of the political spectrum people may have
had a bad personal experience because in their area maybe the liberals
controlled it or in another area maybe the conservatives controlled it.
People complain about Fox News today; people complain about talk radio;
you hear conservatives complaining about the major TV networks and all
that. But as long as people have the choices of where they view, the
market will determine where they get their information based on people
choosing which stations they choose to watch.
That seems to me to be the American way. Let there be plenty of
choices out there. Let freedom ring, basically, and then Americans will
choose what the percentage of viewership is based on the choices they
make.
In this Senator's opinion, this resolution before us today would go
the exact opposite way of that we should be going. We should be
liberalizing these rules so broadcast stations have a chance to
compete. We are watching daily the quality of programming in our
broadcast television go down because it is incredibly expensive to
produce those shows today. So we are seeing more shows like
``Survivor,'' with these people on reality television shows that
frankly don't cost a lot of money to produce because you don't have to
pay the big actors. We want to reverse that trend, go the other way,
and the way to do that is to liberalize the ownership rules.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Washington, Senator Murray.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, like many Americans, I was disappointed
by the Federal Communications Commission's recent order on media
ownership. As my colleagues know, on June 2 the FCC voted to relax the
rules on media ownership. That order could reduce local news coverage
and could hinder the diversity of views presented in the news media.
I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators
Dorgan and Lott to invalidate the FCC's media ownership order. Passage
of this resolution will help ensure that the marketplace of ideas is
not dominated by a few corporate conglomerates at the expense of our
citizens and our democracy.
Since its founding, our Nation has always recognized the importance
of a free press in helping citizens make informed decisions on critical
public issues. Over the past few years, we have seen massive mergers
take place in many industries, but Americans recognize that the news
media are different. They don't just produce a product to make a
profit. They also provide a vital public service that could be
undermined if just a few mega-corporations control what we can read,
see and hear. That is why the FCC's order has provoked such a large
public backlash.
By a 3-2 vote, the FCC made two major changes. First, it lifted a
restriction that prevents mergers between newspaper and television
stations in the same market. This is known as the cross-ownership rule.
Until now, that restriction has ensured that one company does not
control both newspaper
[[Page S11505]]
and television coverage in an area. That helps ensure that consumers
have access to diverse sources of information.
By eliminating this cross-ownership rule, however, consumers could
end up with fewer voices and perspectives on the public airwaves and in
the newspaper. The number one television station in a market could be
owned by the dominant newspaper or even the only newspaper in that same
market. We are not talking about something that could happen in just
one or two cities. This could happen all over the country. Down the
road, the order could encourage just a handful of powerful corporations
to own nearly every media outlet. That could hinder diverse and
alternative viewpoints. It could also mean fewer reporters and
resources for covering local and community events.
The newspaper market is already much less diverse than it was 25
years ago. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have
disappeared. The FCC's first order sets the stage for a further
reduction in independent newspaper ownership.
The FCC's second order would allow broadcast networks to own more
stations across the country. Currently, one broadcast network cannot
own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the public. The FCC
just raised that limit to 45 percent. This order threatens to reduce
the amount of local news coverage available to citizens. Just look at
what has happened in the radio industry. National radio networks have
gobbled up local stations. Many have consolidated their news operations
to the detriment of local consumers. Getting rid of local news coverage
is not good for our local communities and their residents. This change
could be especially troubling in rural areas.
I have been working on this issue for several months, and I believe
we have reached a critical juncture that calls for Senate action.
On April 9, nearly 2 months before the ruling, I sent a letter to FCC
Chairman Michael Powell along with 14 other U.S. Senators from both
political parties. We asked the FCC to let the Congress and the public
review and comment on the proposed changes before they were enacted.
When the order came out in June, I expressed my concerns.
A couple of weeks ago in the Appropriations Committee, I echoed the
comments of Senators Dorgan and Hutchison on the need to either fix or
eliminate this order through action on the Senate floor, and that is
why I'm here today in support of this resolution.
The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 4, but was
postponed when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary
stay. This stay could be lifted if the FCC meets the court's
requirements, so the Senate needs to act quickly.
One option before the Senate is to pass a law invalidating the FCC's
order. Unfortunately, that approach would still leave the door open for
the FCC to simply rewrite the rule and do an ``end run'' around
Congress. A better way to invalidate the rule is to use the
Congressional Review Act, CRA. It would stop the rule and would also
prevent the FCC from re-imposing it later under a different name.
In the Appropriations Committee, we included a provision that would
lower the media cap back to 35 percent. That mirrored a similar
provision in the House's Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary
Appropriations bill. We must finish the job today by using the CRA to
invalidate the whole rule.
Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans get their news from local TV
and newspapers. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to dictate
what all Americans can see, hear, and read as they make decisions on
critical public issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for diverse media
ownership by supporting this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska such time
as he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I oppose this resolution which would
disapprove all of the FCC's recent rulings on media ownership. I oppose
it for several reasons.
In the first place, the court of appeals has stayed this resolution,
and it is reviewing its contents. I do not think it is appropriate for
the Senate to pass such a resolution when there already exists
legislation that addresses the most contentious media ownership issues.
As one of the original sponsors of the legislation that is on the
calendar already, I urge the Senate to take up that bill and not
approve this resolution. My legislation, S. 1046, has the support of a
majority of the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee.
I do not support this attempt to unravel everything that the FCC did
regarding the media ownership rules. For the most part, I think the
Commission did a good job on the media ownership issues, absent one
issue regarding 35 percent.
My main concern all along was to keep the national ownership cap at
the 35 percent level, and that was the primary focus of the bill that I
introduced. In fact, that bill already passed out of the Commerce
Committee.
My bill prohibits ownership of TV broadcast stations if the ownership
exceeds 35 percent of the national TV audience. It maintains the status
quo for the cap and closely tracks what Congress originally intended in
the Telecom Act.
There were several amendments that were added to my bill in the
Commerce Committee which addressed other parts of the rules. One was
offered by my colleague from North Dakota. That amendment undid the
Commission's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban.
I didn't agree with his original amendment because I thought that the
FCC's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban was prudent. I was
concerned that the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota didn't
contemplate situations in small markets where cross-ownership between
newspapers and TV stations is necessary. Therefore, in committee I
added language to his amendment which allows for a waiver procedure in
small markets.
This pending resolution, however, does not contemplate the small
markets at all in the context of cross-ownership. This concerns me and
should certainly concern others as well, especially those who represent
small markets.
Last week the Third Circuit issued an order staying the FCC media
ownership rules, pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding
before that court. Therefore, this Third Circuit stay has creates
status quo allowing the stake holders to fully brief and argue their
sides.
Finally, the issue that has received the most support and attention
from my colleagues and from diverse interest groups is the 35 percent
cap issue. That issue has been addressed by both the House in the CJS
appropriations bill and by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the
CJS bill.
Therefore, with all of these various tracks already in play, I don't
think it is wise to open another can of worms on the same issues. It is
not productive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a
statement on the matter before us.
Mr. President, the Senate faces a critical decision today--whether
new media ownership rules proposed by the FCC truly serve the public
interest. They do not, and we should pass this resolution of
disapproval and force the FCC to rework them.
On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new
broadcast media ownership rules that would allow greater concentration
of ownership of U.S. broadcast television stations, both at the
national and local levels. At the national level, a single owner could
own stations capable of reaching up to 45 percent of the national
audience--up from 35 percent--under the new rules. A single entity
could reach up to twice that percentage of the national audience if he
or she owned UHF stations. In most markets, duopolies ownership of two
stations in the same market would be allowed, and triopolies would be
allowed in the largest markets.
The new rules would also allow cross-ownership of broadcast
television stations and major newspapers in all but the smallest of
media markets as well as greater cross-ownership of television
[[Page S11506]]
and radio stations. The rules would theoretically allow one owner to
reach 90 percent of national TV audience and, in a large market, own
three television stations, eight radio stations, the only daily
newspaper, and the cable company.
The public overwhelmingly opposes these new rules. In fact, a recent
CNN poll found that 96 percent of Americans believe there is already
too much media concentration--that ownership of too many media outlets
is already under the control of too few corporations.
Why should Congress care? For several reasons.
Congress has repeatedly mandated, most recently in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, that the FCC serve the public interest
by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints, and localism. These
rules fail on all counts.
First, competition. Remember that there are a limited number of
broadcast licenses available. Ted Turner, who bought one station and
turned it into a media giant, addressed the rules' potential effect on
competition. Turner wrote in an op-ed that if he had been faced with
the FCC's new rules, he never could have started his own media company:
``If a young media entrepreneur were trying to get started today under
these proposed rules, he or she wouldn't be able to buy a UHF station,
as I did. They're all bought up,'' he wrote.
Turner added that even if that young entrepreneur could buy a UHF
station, he or she wouldn't have access to the programming and
distribution needed, as both are largely controlled by the major media
companies. ``Today both (programming and distribution) are owned by
conglomerates that keep the best for themselves and leave the worst for
you if they sell anything to you at all. It's hard to compete when your
suppliers are owned by your competitors,'' he said.
Second, independence and diversity of viewpoints. Many argue there
are an infinite number of media outlets today, especially given the
huge growth in cable channels and internet addresses. But the vast
majority of Americans get their news and information from television
news and/or their local newspaper. And realize that none of the cable
news channels have anywhere near the viewership of the broadcast media,
and that most of the major cable and internet news outlets are
affiliated with the print and broadcast media that are already
controlled in large part by just a handful of companies. Diversity of
viewpoints is already in jeopardy, and the new rules would only
exacerbate the situation.
Third, localism. If many of those so-called diverse viewpoints are
actually controlled by a handful of companies, then one can see that
localism, too, is in trouble. The loss of localism in radio is well
known, sometimes with dangerous consequences like the famous Minot, ND
case that Senator Dorgan has talked about. In fact, the lack of
localism in radio is so undeniable that even the FCC has agreed to
address it in the one aspect of the proposed rules that makes sense.
But localism in television is also at risk local entertainment
choices as well as news. James Goodman of Capital Broadcasting in North
Carolina explained it well in his testimony before the Commerce
Committee. He owns Fox and CBS stations in Raleigh. Out of respect for
his local audience's sensibilities, he has refused to carry either
network's ``reality TV'' shows, including ``Temptation Island,''
``Cupid,'' ``Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire,'' and ``Married by
America.'' His actions have met with intense resistance from the
networks, and he has expressed his grave concern that if the networks'
ability to own more and more of the broadcast outlets goes unchecked,
local stations and communities won't have any ability to choose their
own programming. They will be forced to air the network fare, even when
it is offensive to local viewers.
Finally, and most important, there is an even more basic threat posed
by these new rules: It is a threat to democracy itself. The integrity
of our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Again, the vast
majority of Americans get their news and information from
television and/or their local newspaper. If we allow the limited
broadcast spectrum to be controlled by a handful of companies, how can
we maintain the free marketplace of ideas?
Those in the print media rightfully chafe at the prospect of
government restrictions. Anyone in America has the right to print their
ideas. But when we talk of broadcast media, we are talking about public
airwaves, and that is a different matter altogether. Again, space on
the spectrum is limited, and so are broadcast licenses. And the FCC was
created to regulate them in the public interest--not to rubber-stamp
the industry's wish list.
Not only are the new rules a threat to democracy, but the process by
which they were approved is a threat to democracy.
In response to pressure from the Democratic appointees to the
Commission, FCC Chairman Michael Powell called only one official field
hearing. Field hearings are intended to solicit input from the general
public from across the country to overcome the ``inside the Beltway''
virus that often infects policies born in Washington, DC. Chairman
Powell's ``field'' hearing was held 90 miles from Washington, and much
of his invited testimony came from industry representatives, many of
whom, in fact, live and work inside the Beltway.
It appears the Chairman thought a pro-industry decision would sail
through with minimal attention. After all, other than paid lobbyists,
how many people have the time to follow the details of an FCC decision-
making process? But a funny thing happened on the way to the vote. As
soon as people outside the Beltway did learn what the FCC was planning
to do, they protested, and they protested in large numbers.
Of the 2 million individuals who commented on the FCC's proposed
rules, 99 percent opposed them. Ninety-nine percent. Of the first
10,000 comments that were sampled separately, there were only 57
comments in favor of the rules, and only 11 of those 57 were from
people with no vested interest in the rules changes.
Those margins are essentially unheard of in American politics. Near
unanimity. But in the halls of the FCC, that overwhelmingly negative
input was essentially ignored. The votes of the American people didn't
count. Only three votes counted--the votes of three commissioners who
decided that they knew better than 99 percent of the people who
commented on the rules.
The FCC's hasty process also effectively blocked public comment on
many issues. Allowing for public comment isn't just the right thing to
do. It generally leads to a better product. The FCC has an expert
staff. But mistakes can and do happen. And an agency as determined to
act quickly as the FCC was on this matter is more likely to make
mistakes.
One such apparent mistake affects my state of South Dakota and would
classify Sioux Falls as having more television stations than Detroit.
It does so by counting five public broadcast stations as separate
stations even though they broadcast the same signal. As a result, Sioux
Falls is considered to have 11 stations instead of 7. And Sioux Falls,
the 112th-largest market by population, is counted as having more
stations than Detroit, the 10th-largest market.
Some commercial broadcasters own multiple stations that broadcast
identical signals. FCC rules appropriately treat them as one station.
But the exemption applies only to commercial stations, not public
television stations. FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a South
Dakota native, identified the error and encouraged his colleagues to
correct it, but the Commission has not done so.
The consequences of such an error are real. Because the new rules
consider Sioux Falls to have 11 stations instead of 7, the city is
placed in a category without any cross-ownership restrictions. That
would allow the newspaper to acquire two television stations instead of
one, and own twice as many radio stations as would be permitted if
Sioux Falls were properly classified. Fortunately, I don't see any rush
for that to happen. But who knows what a future owner of the Sioux
Falls Argus Leader or one of the Sioux Falls television stations might
wish to do? This is just the kind of mistake that could have been
avoided if the FCC had employed the more deliberative, inclusive
process that so many of us advocated.
[[Page S11507]]
Let's review the mission of the Federal Communications Commission, as
stated repeatedly by the Commission and by acts of Congress: to serve
the public interest by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints,
and localism. The public interest--that phrase should be italicized in
this debate.
As we define the public interest, the public--the people who receive
the radio and TV news and programming that beams across the airwaves
their taxes paid for--has a right to be heard. Public comment, input,
and involvement in our democratic processes is not a box to be checked
before the petitions, call, e-mails, and letters are thrown in the
trash and disregarded. It is a basic tenet of our social contract and
the principle that underlies our form of government. Of the people, by
the people, for the people.
I am all for ensuring the rights of the minority. Indeed, I feel
strongly about our civic responsibility to ensure that a reactionary or
powerful majority does not trample on the rights of those in our
society whose voices are not as easily heard or fully represented. In
fact, that's one key reason I oppose the substance of these rules--I
fear the voices of those who may have quite valuable things to say, but
lack the means to gobble up TV and radio stations, will not be heard.
But in this case we don't have a powerful majority trampling on the
rights of the vulnerable. We have three people--with an obvious push
from the current administration--trampling on the rights of the
majority. To add insult to injury, they are telling the majority--the
American people--that they are doing this in their interest. Of course,
the interests being served are those of the handful of large media
companies that already control a huge percentage of America's major
media outlets.
Let me be clear: I don't blame the media companies for advocating for
their own interests. They have every right to fight for their
interests. I do blame the Chairman of the FCC and the other
commissioners who voted for these rules for failing to give the rest of
the country the consideration they deserved in this debate.
The Congressional Review Act was intended for exactly this kind of
situation. A Federal agency has turned a deaf ear to the very public it
was intended to serve. It is appropriate to send them back to the
drawing board, especially if that is the only option available to us.
The Commerce Committee actually reported a bill that deals with the
issues individually, and I would be happy to debate that bill. But it
has been made clear to us that the majority has no intention of
bringing the Commerce Committee bill to the floor, and we have no
ability to force it to the floor before these rules take effect.
Mr. President, I want to make one final point. This isn't a partisan
issue. The Republican supporters of this resolution of disapproval
include Republican Party stalwarts like Trent Lott and Kay Bailey
Hutchison. It is not a liberal versus conservative issue, either.
The list of well-recognized people and organizations who oppose all
or part of the FCC's media ownership rules is one of the strangest list
of strange bedfellows you will ever hear. Opponents include Walter
Cronkite, William Safire, the National Rifle Association, the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Organization for Women,
Senator Jesse Helms, the National Council of Churches, MoveOn, the
Parents Television Council, former Universal Studios Chairman and CEO
Barry Diller, Mort Zuckerman, and many, many more. That sampling of the
list gives you a sense of how broad and deep the opposition to these
FCC rules is.
We should respect that overwhelming opposition and vote accordingly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is
remaining on both sides, and at what time will the vote take place?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 39 seconds on your side
and 15 minutes 45 seconds on the other side. The vote will occur around
11 o'clock.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Maine, Ms. Snowe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 3
minutes.
Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Dorgan for his
remarkable leadership on this most important matter.
Drastic times require drastic measures. That is why I stand with my
colleagues today in support of this resolution which will help and
safeguard one of our most precious possessions--the right of free and
diverse exchange of opinions.
The decision that has been made by the FCC will no doubt pave the way
for even greater concentration of media ownership in the hands of a
select few and deprive the public of the diversity of viewpoints that I
happen to believe is so essential to democracy and objective reporting
in America.
The FCC's June vote on media ownership ultimately, as I said in the
committee, is truly the ``deregulatory'' express out of the station.
Now we are on track toward even greater ownership concentration and
unfettered consolidation.
Some have said that with exponentially more media outlets than ever
before, we should have nothing to fear. While more mouths speaking is
good, having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of opinion
nor information. The point is the amalgamation of control in media
outlets. We cannot ignore the fact that diversity of discourse in
America is an essential underpinning.
When it comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets
representing 98 percent of the American population, and when reports
show that 5 companies or fewer control about 60 percent of television
households in just the next few years, we should all be very concerned.
I know some have said the process and the outcome of the FCC media
ownership, as we heard from the FCC Commissioners before the Senate
Commerce Committee, were preordained by the statutes and by the courts.
The courts did not prescribe what the limits should be. Neither did
they set a date certain. Rather, what they said was that whatever the
limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating that
they are in the public interest.
How does one determine what is in the public interest? It is
aggressively seeking the input of all stakeholders--not just simply
notifying the public, notifying the Congress, and that simple
disclosure is, in and of itself, sufficient. Absolutely not--not in
this unprecedented realm of issues.
When we look at the record, what we find is that the FCC only held
one public hearing. The committee urged them to conduct a series of
public hearings across the country. But they only held one public
hearing. Even with one public hearing, the FCC received an
unprecedented amount of input from the public when it came to this
issue. Even though they did not have the opportunity to participate in
public hearings, they sent more than 700,000 e-mails, letters, and
calls from across the country.
This is unprecedented in the history of the FCC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17. I had the opportunity
to make a full statement last week. In my time as chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee, no issue has erupted so rapidly and evoked
such passion from the public as media consolidation. These are
critically important decisions.
If we could have a little straight talk this morning, if the Senate
passes this resolution, there is no objective observer that believes
the House will act accordingly. Now, the Senator from North Dakota may
think it is important to have this Senate on record, and I don't
disagree with that at all. Any prospects of it becoming a reality is
minimal, at best. We should all recognize that.
Second, all kinds of allegations have crept in about various
motivations on both sides of this issue. Some have been accused of
wanting to return to the fairness doctrine. Some are saying it is
because of ideological bias, dislike of talk radio, or dislike of the
New
[[Page S11508]]
York Times acquiring more cable companies and media. I don't accept any
of those arguments from both the right and left. There is legitimate
basis for concern about continued consolidation of the media. This is
not the appropriate vehicle for addressing that in 4 hours of debate
and a blanket repudiation of regulations, some of which have been good,
in my view, because they have reined in, at least to some degree, the
continued consolidation in the most egregious and most incredible media
consolidation, and that is radio in America today.
We have legislation passed through the Commerce Committee, S. 1046,
which after being composed, marked up, amended, and debated in the
Commerce Committee is on the calendar and ready for floor
consideration. If we are serious about addressing this issue, we should
do it by calling up from the calendar for debate and amendment S. 1046
and we can explore the myriad and complex aspects of this issue.
For example, the Appropriations Committee has now added, I am told,
to their bill the 45-percent cap being rolled back to 35 percent.
According to BusinessWeek magazine, the 45-percent cap has become a
rallying symbol, but the regulations that would truly reorder America's
media landscape and affect local communities have flown under the
radar. These allow companies to snap up not only two to three local TV
stations in a market but also a newspaper and up to eight radio
stations.
If the courts and Congress are worried about the dangers of media
consolidation, they will have to resist calling it a day after
dispensing with the network cap and go after the rules with real bite.
As it now stands, TV's big networks will be losers among media outlets,
thanks mostly to vociferous lobbying by independent TV affiliates. With
strong ties to lawmakers who depend on them for campaign coverage, the
affiliates have succeeded in getting a House vote against the 45
percent and will likely see a rerun of that episode when the Senate
votes by October.
With Fox and CBS already each owning stations that cover about 40
percent of the Nation's audience, going up another 5 percent is not
going to make a dramatic difference. In contrast, opening the
floodgates to allow local behemoths to combine newspapers, TV, and
radio stations under one roof would change media ownership in towns and
cities, concentrating it in the hands of a few. Even in midsized cities
such as San Antonio, for instance, one company might own the leading
newspaper, two TV stations, eight radio stations, and several cable
channels.
What we are doing is interesting but if we are going to address this
issue in a serious fashion, and there is reason for concern, we ought
to do it in a fashion far different from this.
I point out that the CRA precludes an agency adopting similar rules
without substantive congressional legislation. In other words, the FCC
would be prevented, if this is passed, from acting on any rules
regarding media consolidation. Almost all Members of this body have
some degree of concern at least about some aspect of it.
I hope all of our colleagues had the opportunity to see the Wall
Street Journal article on September 15 entitled: Show of Strength: How
Media Giants Are Reassembling The Old Oligopoly; Mix of Broadcast and
Cable Proves Lucrative in Making Deals.
Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable channels
because they are one of the few entertainment outlets generating strong
revenue growth these days. More broadly, the media giants have
discovered that owning both broadcast and cable outlets provides
powerful new leverage over advertisers and cable- and satellite-TV
operators. The golaiths are using this advantage to wring better fees
out of the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring those
operators into carrying new and untried channels. They're also finding
ways to coordinate promotions across their different holdings.
Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General Electric Co.
and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach more than 50 percent of
the prime-time TV audience through their combined broadcast and cable
outlets. The total rises to 80 percent if you include the parents of
newer networks--such as New Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB--
and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets,
estimates Tom Wolzein, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old programming
oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. Wolzein, a former executive
at NBC. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the
big five media companies.
The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable channels is
``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says Bob Wright, chairman of
NBC, which two weeks ago signed a preliminary agreement to acquire
Vivendi Universal's USA and Sci-Fi cable channels, along with the
Universal film studio, bolstering a stable of cable channels that
includes Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC. ``There has been so much
consolidation'' among the distributors that ``unless you are equally
big . . . you risk a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says
Viacom President Karmazin.
Viacom president Karmazin is a man, who, by the way, I happen to
admire enormously.
I am not blaming any of these people, executives or organizations,
for seeking to gain as much market share as they can. But the reason I
refer to this Wall Street Journal article is this is a complex set of
issues. When we are talking about cable consolidation, cable rates, all
of the other.
Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have changed
hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion acquisition of ESPN's
parent, Capital Cites/ABC, and Time Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of
CNN parent Turner Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995.
In 2001, Disney bought the Family Channel from News Corp. for $5.2
billion.
Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion. CBS, owner of The
Nashville Network--now Spike TV--and Country Music Television, itself
was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime parent, Viacom. Viacom has
since added channels such as BET and Comedy Central.
Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the company's
broadcast and cable outlets reach 26 percent of the Nation's viewers in
prime time, a significantly bigger share than any other company. Having
such a big market share is ``real important for lots of reasons, in
terms of dealing with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told
investors.
There is something going on here that deserves investigation, not
just a simple CRA vote and then move on. At the hearing before the
Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed--all five, for
one of the first times I have ever heard the FCC Commissioners agree to
anything--the consolidation of radio that occurred in local markets has
been excessive. While it received little credit amid the outcry against
the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by
describing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on
logical radio ownership.
The resolution would have the perverse consequences of eliminating
these efforts and prohibiting the FCC from adopting similar measures in
the future, a move that surely will be applauded in the corporate
offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their
ability to benefit from existing loopholes.
Likewise, this resolution could have grave unintended consequences
for other media ownership rules the Commission decided to leave
unchanged.
For example, the FCC retained its limit on the number of local radio
stations one entity may own and retained its rule prohibiting one
entity from owning two of the four largest television networks. The
decision to retain these rules will also be rejected if the resolution
is enacted. If the FCC were to read this statute, as many have, as
limiting its permissible actions in biennial review proceeding to
exclusively deregulatory changes to its rules, the FCC may have no
choice but to raise the number of stations that one entity is permitted
to own in a local market or eliminate the dual rhetoric network rule.
This cannot be the outcome intended by the sponsors of this resolution,
though it is one that could conceivably result.
Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a
regulatory
[[Page S11509]]
void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the
FCC's media ownership rules. As a result, all of the rules, even those
that the proponents of the resolution favor, may be vulnerable to court
action. The absence of an affirmative congressional directive will cast
considerable doubt on the FCC's ability to enforce its previous rules
given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was
found by the DC Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious. Another was
found not to have justified that the rules are necessary in the public
interest. In both cases, the DC Circuit remanded the rules to the FCC
and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for
retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC
order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional
court action that relaxes the rules even further or even invalidates
them entirely.
My point is that we have a very complex set of issues to address. I
believe there is reason for concern about media consolidation, as the
Senator from North Dakota has fairly overused the comment that there
are many voices and one ventriloquist. At the same time this action
would invalidate both good and bad, this action would make many believe
that we have resolved the issue and moved on.
On the calendar is S. 1046, a bill that was properly considered and
reported out by the Commerce Committee. That is the way we should be
addressing this issue so that this issue can be fully ventilated and
fully understood.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I oppose the Dorgan Resolution, S. 17, which
would block the entire Federal Communications Commission's ruling
revising the rules on media ownership.
Since the FCC issued this ruling on June 2, 2003, a multitude of
interest groups have proclaimed that this decision represents a serious
blow to democracy in America as we know it. To say that this claim is a
gross exaggeration is a huge understatement.
While I do not agree with every element of the FCC ruling, I must
admit that I believe it would be short sighted to block the ruling
entirely. I also think that every stakeholder who is concerned about
this ruling should look at the facts that prompted the FCC to make this
ruling. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that one examine the
actual facts in the ruling in order to dispel some of the myths that
have surfaced with regard to it.
In its ruling, the FCC incrementally increased the national TV
ownership limit from 35 percent to 45 percent. What this says is that
one company can own TV stations reaching no more than 45 percent of
U.S. TV households. It does not mean that one company can own up to 45
percent of all TV stations across the country. In addition, the ruling
does not even say that a company can own stations whose programs reach
45 percent of the viewing public or market share.
For example, Newscorps, Fox, the second largest owner of stations
currently owns 37 or 2.8 percent of the 1,340 commercial stations
across the country. Under the new 45 percent cap set forth in the FCC
ruling, Newscorps would be able to acquire, at best, another five
stations nationwide. In light of this information and in light of the
court mandates, the FCC action on this issue hardly represents a
massive increase.
The FCC promulgated this increase in response to several court
decisions striking down specific limits on the number of broadcast
entities that one company may own. Since 1998, the FCC has lost five
out of five cases that challenged its previous media ownership rules.
According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ``carries with it a presumption in
favor of repealing or modifying the ownership rules (Fox v. FCC).''
In the Fox v. FCC decision, which was handed down in February 2002,
the court ruled that the FCC's action--on broadcast ownership limits--
was ``arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law'' because ``it
failed to give an adequate reason for its decision'' to keep the 35
percent cap. In the same case, the court ruled that the commission
``provided no analysis on the state of competition in the television
industry to justify its decision to retain the national cap.'' The
court in its remanding decision ordered the FCC to rethink its rules on
media ownership.
Another aspect of the FCC ruling involved the modification of the
FCC's rules relating to newspaper/broadcast cross ownership and radio-
television cross ownership. In its ruling, the FCC replaced these rules
with a new set of cross media limits. It is important to understand
that the FCC did not totally repeal the 28-year-old newspaper/broadcast
ownership ban in all markets; it simply modified its rule with newer
broadcast/cross ownership regulations to reflect the changing
circumstances of today's diverse media marketplace.
Under the new FCC rules, in small markets with three or fewer TV
stations the ban will continue to be enforced. In mid-sized markets,
with 4 to 8 TV stations, limited cross ownership is allowed. In diverse
and competitive markets with 9 or more TV stations, the ban is lifted
entirely.
This is the major decision in the FCC ruling that I support, and it
is the main reason that I cannot support the Dorgan resolution. Simply
put, the previous rule supporting the cross ownership ban is outdated
given the current diversity and multiple sources of news information in
today's media marketplace.
When the broadcast/newspaper cross ownership provisions were adopted
in 1975, the three television networks of the time held more than 90
percent of the viewing audience and only 17 percent of households
subscribed to cable TV. However, due to the technological revolution of
the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the
number of news and information sources with the widespread availability
of cable TV, satellite and the internet as well as substantial increase
in the number of radio and TV stations, magazines, and free weekly
newspapers.
Yet, despite the availability of these new media sources, many groups
are still objecting to this modest change in media cross ownership.
They feel that this modification will drastically reduce the quality
news and diversity of voices in the media. I believe there is strong
evidence to refute this claim.
Unlike other ownership rules, the FCC has actual historical data on
what the effect of relaxing this ban will have on the media market.
That is because there are already 49 media cross ownership entities
that were grandfathered prior to the implementation of this ban in
1975. Some of these cross ownership entities are in major markets such
as New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, and Milwaukee.
All of these existing cross ownership entities have had practically
no adverse impact on competition. In the past 23 years, there has been
no major court case, FCC, FTC, or Department of Justice, DOJ, action
objecting to any of these grandfathered cross ownership media entities.
Furthermore, the FCC informs me that no entity has ever challenged a
license renewal of a TV station owned by a newspaper in the last 25
years. Two recent studies, one by the FCC and one by the Project for
Excellence in Journalism, also found that co-owned newspaper/broadcast
combinations provide higher quality and more news and informational
programming than other broadcast stations.
In light of this evidence, I feel that the FCC's ruling on newspaper/
broadcast cross ownership needs to be preserved, and therefore, I
oppose the Dorgan resolution.
As stated previously, I do not agree with every aspect of the FCC
ruling. I do not support the new method by which the FCC will utilize
to define a local radio market. This new definition has resulted in
many companies that own multiple radio stations exceeding the new
station caps. While the FCC did grandfather all existing combinations
to ensure that these radio companies would not be forced to divest
stations that they legally acquired, it imposed harsh restrictions on
the transferability or resale of these newly non-compliant radio
station clusters.
Under the new market definition, those radio clusters that no longer
comply with local radio market limits may only be sold intact to small
businesses. If a ``small business buyer'' cannot be found, a cluster
owner must break up his or her cluster and sell the stations
individually. I believe that this strict resale provision unfairly
penalizes certain radio broadcasters, who
[[Page S11510]]
acquired their stations in good faith under the previous ownership
framework.
By narrowing the eligible market of buyers, this resale provision
would prevent a radio cluster seller from receiving fair-market value
on his or her investment. If most companies are prohibited from bidding
on a cluster, the prices offered in these transactions will be
considerably smaller than otherwise.
I also believe this resale provision will only make bigger radio
conglomerates stronger because it will result in the immediate breakup
of clusters that directly compete with these conglomerates.
I intend to petition the FCC for reconsideration of these new local
radio rules set forth in the FCC order. However, I do not believe that
the entire FCC order should be disapproved, and that is why I oppose
the Dorgan resolution.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, drastic times require drastic measures and
that's why I stand with my colleagues today in support of S.J. Res. 17,
disapproving the FCC's June 2 vote to relax, and in some cases
eliminate, the rules that safeguard one of our Nation's most precious
possessions, the right of free and diverse exchange of opinion. This
decision will pave the way for even greater concentration of media
ownership in the hands of a select few and deprive the public to the
diversity of viewpoints that are so important to democracy and
objective reporting in this country.
In response to the FCC's action, Senator Dorgan and I along with
seven other colleagues sponsored S.J. Res. 17. This resolution would
simply declare the FCC's June 2 rules on media ownership without force
or effect and would leave in place the media ownership rules that
existed prior to the Commission's decision.
With the FCC's June vote on media ownership, the ``deregulatory
express'' is out of the station--and we are now on track toward even
greater ownership concentration and unfettered consolidation. Now, some
have said that, with exponentially more media outlets than ever before,
we should have nothing to fear. But while more mouths speaking is good,
having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of information nor
opinion. The point is the amalgamation of control in media outlets and
its impact on content--especially with the overwhelming majority of
Americans receiving their news from television and newspapers.
We cannot ignore that diversity of discourse in America is an
essential underpinning of our society and our democracy. So when it
comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets
representing 98 percent of the American population--and when reports
show that five companies or fewer could control about 60 percent of
television households in just the next few years--we should all be very
concerned.
I know that some have said, well, the process and the outcome of the
FCC's media ownership review were essentially preordained by statute
and the courts. But the courts never proscribed what the limits should
be. Neither did they set a date certain by which the FCC must have
concluded its process. What the court did say is that, whatever the
limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating they
are in the public interest.
And what is the best way to determine public interest? It's to go
above and beyond in notifying and providing full disclosure to the
public and Congress, and aggressively soliciting input from all
stakeholders--so the public can be confident the best possible decision
has been reached. The FCC failed to do this. With more than 700,000
individuals and groups weighing in against the FCC's rule change, the
Commission held only one public hearing on the subject of media
ownership, I can't help but think there must be a better way.
Let me speak to the FCC's modification of the cross ownership ban,
one of the more devastating changes made by the Commission on June 2.
Many of us represent States that have communities with only one
newspaper, under the new rules the FCC would allow that single
remaining paper to be purchased by the dominant television broadcaster
in the area. In the context of other FCC rules, the agency recognized
that it is bad for local competition to allow 2 of the top 4 broadcast
outlets to be consolidated, but in this context, the FCC is allowing
the top TV station to buy the top newspaper in almost every media
market in the country. Newspapers are one of the most important sources
of independent reporting. When the leading TV station gobbles up the
paper, what happens to the other TV broadcasters in the market? They
simply can't compete at the same level. It seems apparent that the
remaining TV stations do less news, or they move to softer news
formats. This isn't good for news, this isn't good for democracy.
If the FCC had acted to create more voices--perhaps by requiring
those broadcasters who want a television-newspaper combination to start
a new newspaper rather than just buying one--I could see the wisdom in
their decision. Instead, the FCC has acted to reduce the total number
of voices in communities all across the country. Some say that the
FCC's decision will allow these newspaper/broadcast combinations in
over 190 media markets, covering 98 percent of America's population.
Since the newspaper/broadcast rule was put in place in 1975, we have
already lost two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners. Let me
reiterate that: two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners have
disappeared since 1975. And somehow we're going to make democracy
better by further reducing the number of independent newspaper owners
by allowing broadcaster television owners to buy them--it just doesn't
make sense.
The issue of media ownership goes to the heart of our democracy and
the crux of the way in which we form our opinions on other issues of
critical importance. We need to be extremely careful that in
deregulation we don't undermine diversity in the marketplace of ideas
and information. I look forward to continuing my work in this area and
urge the public to keep the pressure on Congress to undo the damage
unleashed by the FCC on June 2. I ask that my colleagues support S.J.
Res. 17.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to outline my concerns about Senator
Dorgan's resolution to disapprove the Federal Communications
Commission's June 2, 2003 decision to relax the broadcast media
ownership rules.
The FCC's decision to increase the proportion of market share
broadcasters may own in any given market from 35 percent to 45 percent
and to give newspaper owners the ability to own radio stations and vice
versa has raised significant questions relating to the proper scope of
regulation and protection of our fundamental First Amendment values.
As a procedural matter, I am concerned about the Senate acting on the
Dorgan resolution given the pending court proceedings reviewing the
FCC's rule modifications. On September 3, 2003, in Prometheus Radio
Project v. Federal Communications Commission, the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals stayed the effective date of the FCC's new rules, pending
resolution of the appeal on the merits. No. 03-3388, 2003 U.S. App.
LEXIS 18390. Given the procedural status of the FCC's rules, it is
premature for the Senate to act on the Dorgan resolution. A more
prudent course for the Senate is to await the Court of Appeals
decision, review it carefully, and then determine what action, if any,
is warranted.
With respect to the substance of the FCC's rule modifications, I want
to reiterate my strong support of the bedrock principles underlying the
FCC's regulation of our Nation's media: diversity of viewpoints;
localism; and competition. I have been--and remain--committed to these
principles, particularly with respect to examining critical regulatory
and enforcement issues surrounding increased concentration of our
Nation's media outlets. We must preserve our fundamental First
Amendment values by protecting our marketplace of ideas--that is,
freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoints.
When it comes to ensuring competition and diversity in our media
markets, I have not--and will not--analyze the issue by blindly
condemning all merger consolidations. To me, ``big'' is not necessarily
bad. Rather, the issue of media consolidation requires a careful
weighing of our Nation's interest in promoting competition and
diversity.
In my view, such an analysis requires careful examination of the
potential
[[Page S11511]]
for anti-competitive conduct, rather than adherence to inflexible
regulatory restrictions or hard and fast enforcement rules. Market
forces--not Federal across-the-board regulations--will ensure that
consumers benefit from a merger or consolidation in the media industry.
Like many of my Senate colleagues, I am concerned about the health
and well-being of the small and mid-sized media companies in our
nation. In the State of Utah, we have many excellent small and mid-
sized media companies who provide a great service to all Utahns. To
this end, traditional antitrust enforcement can more effectively and
efficiently protect competition and enhance diversity than regulatory
one-size-fits-all approaches. I believe appropriate enforcement of our
nation's antitrust laws will provide greater protection to small and
mid-sized media owners than any arbitrary FCC rules.
In light of all of these considerations, I urge my colleagues to vote
against the Dorgan resolution. Given the significant interest in the
issue here in the Senate, we should monitor the court proceedings
reviewing the FCC rule. Once the Court has acted, we should then
determine what appropriate steps, if any, are needed to preserve and
protect our bedrock First Amendment principles of media ownership:
diversity, local programming and competition.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dorgan
resolution, and in the hope that the FCC will take a careful, second
look at the changes it made to media ownership rules.
Not everything the FCC did was something I would oppose. For
instance, I support what the FCC did in terms of allowing companies to
own a combination of television, radio, and newspapers in the largest
of media markets, like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York or San Francisco.
But on the whole, the new FCC rules raise some very real concerns
that one or two national companies may begin to dominate too much of
the news and other content delivered to American homes.
The American experiment has been one of free press, diversity of
voices, fair competition, and the ability to hear, and to be heard.
That experiment, in my opinion, has been a resounding success.
Of course, the world has changed, and will continue to do so. As a
result, it is sensible for our regulatory agencies to revisit outdated
rules and modify them to better suit changing technologies and the
changing realities of a more crowded, more advanced nation.
Nevertheless, it is possible to go too far in trying to address these
changing realities, and I believe that the FCC has gone too far in
crafting some of these new media ownership rules. For instance, in
allowing a broadcast network to own and operate local broadcast
stations that reach, in total, up to forty-five percent of U.S.
television households, instead of thirty-five percent under the old
rules, the FCC has opened the door to vast conglomerates of news
stations all feeding the same content to almost half the people in the
country.
We don't know how or even whether this would happen, but the
potential for eliminating local content and reducing the diversity of
opinions presented on television is simply too great.
Likewise, the cross-ownership rules--the rules that determine whether
a company can own both television and newspapers in the same market, or
television and radio, and so on--raise some concerns for markets with
just four of five television stations.
In those small- to medium-sized markets, with between four and eight
television stations, combinations are limited to one of the following:
One daily newspaper, one television station, and up to half of the
radio station limit under the local radio ownership rule for that
market; one daily newspaper, and up to the radio station limit under
the local radio ownership rule for that market, but no television
stations; or two television stations, if permissible under the local
television ownership rule, and up to the radio station limit under the
local radio ownership rule for that market, but no daily newspapers.
The old rule prohibited common ownership of a full-service broadcast
station and a daily newspaper within the same city. In fact, according
to the Congressional Research Service, when it adopted the rule in
1975, the commission not only prohibited future combinations between
newspapers and broadcast stations, but also required existing
combinations in highly concentrated markets to divest holdings to come
into compliance within 5 years. But under this new rule, one company
could own the largest television station in town, the only newspaper,
and half the radio stations. It is easy to see how, in these mid-sized
markets, the amount of diverse content would rapidly diminish.
On the other hand, I am not as concerned with the new rules
pertaining to larger markets like Los Angeles. In a market with more
than two dozen television stations and countless radio stations and
newspapers, it is far less likely that one or two companies could come
to control enough of the media market to truly stifle diversity of
opinion or competition among content sources.
So it is my hope that the FCC will go back and reexamine these new
rules, keeping in mind the concerns of Congress and the American
people, who have spoken out loud and clear about this issue. Fix what
needs to be fixed, keep what is not broken. But come up with a new set
of rules that makes sense for all Americans.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the
implications of too much media concentration. During the Senate
consideration of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I voted for an
amendment authored by Senator Dorgan to keep the Television National
Broadcast Cap at 25 percent of television households that a broadcast
company could reach through its local broadcast stations. I opposed
increasing the cap to 35 percent as the 1996 bill allowed.
In June the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to adopt an
order to relax current media ownership rules. I am a cosponsor of S.J.
Res. 17, authored by Senator Dorgan, being considered by the Senate
today to disapprove of the FCC ruling to lift media ownership
restrictions. Loosening current media concentration restrictions would
allow the media to become less responsive to local concerns and less
likely to represent broad and diverse viewpoints. This is not in the
public interest and should not be allowed.
Today Members of the Senate can oppose these detrimental rule changes
that will result in greater media concentration and less consumer
choice by voting to disapprove them under the Congressional Review Act.
I have supported the congressional review of rules dating back even
before I came to the Senate. And I am proud and pleased that we have
the opportunity to use it to stop this FCC rule today. This is exactly
the situation in which the legislative review process is not only
useful but necessary.
When I first ran for the Senate in 1978, legislative review was
actually a part of my platform. With all of the power executive
agencies have we need to have a mechanism by where the politically
accountable--that is the elected officials--can have a direct say in
the rules and regulations issued by Executive Branch agencies. These
agencies are supposed to be carrying out the will of Congress, and we
have not only the right, but the responsibility to oversee their
actions.
I joined forces in the late 1970's and early 1980's with then
Congressman Elliott Levitas in the House. In fact, along with Senator
David Boren of Oklahoma, we got the legislative veto passed. But that
law was held unconstitutional by the courts in the Chadha case because
it allowed for a one house veto. The court ruled that legislation
subject to the President's veto power is necessary to avoid violating
the principle of separation of powers.
We then fought to establish a congressional review process. It was
with the bipartisan effort of Senators Harry Reid and Don Nickles
almost 10 years ago, that we finally got legislative review enacted
into law and I was proud to be part of that effort.
And I'm glad to see that what many of us argued decades ago in
support of this review process has proven to be true. This
congressional review process is a two-edged sword. Some opponents
argued it would be used only to limit
[[Page S11512]]
valuable social programs, but we proponents argued that it was neutral
politically--that it could be just as useful to protect against an
agency that is regulating too little as it could be to rein in an
agency that is regulating too much, or as with the case of the FCC,
regulating unwisely.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Federal
Communications Commission, FCC, issued rules making changes to long-
standing limits on the types and amounts of media outlets that can be
owned and controlled by a single company. These rule changes
drastically increase the ability of a few companies to control access
to information in this country. The rule changes undermine the public
interest and do nothing to ensure diversity of viewpoints,
``localism,'' coverage of events in local communities by people who are
a part of that community, or to ensure that healthy competition exists
amongst media outlets.
The American people know these changes are not in the public
interest, and that is why I have heard directly from more than 1,650 of
my constituents urging Congress to overturn the FCC's actions.
Specifically, the rule changes adopted by the FCC earlier this year
would allow a single company to control television stations with access
to almost half of the American broadcast audience. How that can be
billed as increasing competition or diversity of viewpoint is a
mystery. Given that these rules were written with only one public
hearing and without opportunity for public comment, it is not
surprising that they fail to reflect the public interest.
It is important to recognize that overturning these rules is not just
about preventing additional domination of the airwaves. It is about
ensuring the survival of local newspapers that genuinely know and are a
part of the community.
The rule changes would allow the sole or dominant newspaper in a city
to merge with the top broadcaster in 200 of the 210 media markets in
the country! That would mean 98 percent of the American public could
effectively lose an independent voice in their community. Already,
since 1975, two thirds of independent newspaper owners have ceased to
exist, leaving only 290 independent newspapers in a country of 292
million people.
If these rules are allowed to take effect, it will mean fewer
reporters on the ground chasing stories in our local communities, and
less local investigative journalism. It would make it possible for
individual markets to be dominated by a single newspaper/TV
conglomerate which could control well over half the news audience and
two-thirds of the reporters in a given local market.
Inevitably, the merging of broadcasters and newspapers reduces the
number of voices in individual markets and threatens to place too much
control over local news and information in the hands of too few
companies. Repackaging and repeating stories produced in other venues
is not the same as real reporting of local news.
One of the most common refrains that we hear to justify this
tremendous change is that new outlets for news and information are now
available. While I firmly believe that we are only at the cusp of an
information age that will drastically change how we receive
information, it makes no difference if the new access points are
controlled by fewer people.
The reaction to these rules has been quick and sure. I have heard
from over 1,650 of my constituents directly, an additional 10,000
through the Move On petition. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee have taken action to reverse the increase in the cap on
broadcast audience in the appropriations process, and the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals has temporarily halted implementation of these rules.
But the clearest way to send a message to the FCC that these rules
cannot stand is to pass this resolution disapproving the rule changes.
We expect the FCC to be a watchdog not a lapdog.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution as a first step in
reinvigorating competition and preserving local control in mass media.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senate resolution to
overturn the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, decision to
relax our Nation's media concentration rules. That decision threatens
our democracy by placing more power over what we see and hear in the
hands of fewer big interests.
The voices of those who oppose the FCC decision range from Bill
Clinton to Bill Safire, from the National Rifle Association to the
National Organization for Women. I am particularly disappointed with
the manner in which the agency has ignored these voices. The FCC held
only one public hearing on these rules. But commissioners and their
staff met with just one firm lobbying on behalf of big media more than
30 times.
The agency received more than 700,000 letters opposing the relaxation
of the rules and only a handful supporting that decision but failed to
take that overwhelming public sentiment into consideration. I reject
the FCC rule because the FCC ignored the people's concerns.
Congress must send the agency a clear bipartisan message--the
airwaves belong to the American people, not to you and not to a small
group of media elites. The FCC must be forced to address the concerns
of the American people. The people know that the FCC decision to relax
our media ownership threatens democratic discourse and participation.
It will allow massive media giants to grow--media giants that already
use multiple media outlets to promote their views and overwhelmingly
dominate public debate.
The courts told the FCC to explain why the rules were justified. With
the more than 700,000 public comments opposing relaxation of the rules,
the agency had that justification. The American people understand that
it cannot be in the public interest to further relax the rules that
protect the public's access to multiple sources to information and
media. My office alone has received 4600 letters and e-mails on the
issue.
The FCC is charged with protecting the public interest. In this case,
I believe the commission has failed and Congress must act.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in June, the Federal Communications
Commission, FCC, issued an order that modified its media ownership
rules in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The modified
rules increased from 35 percent to 45 percent of households the cap
governing broadcast network ownership. The new rules also make easier
newspaper-broadcast cross ownership by largely lifting the ban
prohibiting a newspaper from buying a TV or radio station in the same
market.
S. J. Res. 17 would overturn all aspects of the FCC ruling. I do not
believe the FCC ruling is without flaw, but a blanket negation of the
rule-making is not an appropriate response. Though I am not in favor of
the increased cap governing broadcast network ownership, I do support
the modified newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. I believe the
relaxed cross ownership ruling encourages a concordant relationship
between newspapers and television stations that will offer a higher
standard of quality in news content and reporting. This, in turn, reaps
innumerable benefits for communities across America. As I believe the
value of the modified cross ownership ruling usurps the potential
dangers of the increased cap governing broadcast network ownership, I
cannot support S. J. Res. 17.
To unequivocally vacate all aspects of the FCC ruling is to do a
disservice to incalculable citizens across this country who will
benefit from the modified newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. For
the aforementioned reasons, I am voting ``no'' on S. J. Res. 17.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. In a strong democracy, a variety of views
must be available to citizens. Protections are essential so that
minority views can be heard. That was the vision of America's founders
when they drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it has
served the Nation well. Its principles are especially important today.
Neither the broadcast industry nor anyone else is entitled to a
monopoly over the dissemination of information in our society.
The presence of a diversity of voices, each contributing to our
national discourse, is essential for the functioning of our democratic
society. And the best way to foster that diversity is through
competition.
[[Page S11513]]
Today, however, an increasingly serious problem is being caused by
the buyouts of local broadcast stations by national media
conglomerates. Competition suffers, and local issues of great
importance to individual communities often go unheard.
Many of us in Congress are deeply concerned that the remaining
diversity of our media will be further be reduced by the Federal
Communications Commission's recent decision to weaken media ownership
rules. The new rules allow even greater media concentration, in spite
of its adverse effect on competition, the diversity of views, and major
national, State, and local priorities.
I support Senator Dorgan's proposal to reject these rules, because
they are not in the public interest, and would seriously weaken the
protections in current law that prevent excessive concentration in the
broadcast industry. The public has little to gain and a great deal to
lose if we allow the FCC to slash the protections that serve them so
well.
Each weakening of restrictions on media ownership in recent years has
been followed by a burst of new corporate consolidation. Mergers have
sharply reduced the number of media companies and threaten to erode the
diversity and competition that are so important to our Nation. The new
rules will greatly increase this problem, by allowing fewer firms to
control the flow of information--locally or nationally. It makes no
sense for Congress to allow restrictions on the flow of information
that is so important to our democracy in this information age.
As a trustee of the Nation's public airwaves, the FCC has a
responsibility to include the American public in its decision-making
process. Yet the commission has largely ignored public comment and
debate before it these sweeping changes in the nation's broadcasting
rules.
The commission agreed to one public hearing on the overall issue, and
it refused to publicly disclose the rules before they were voted on.
Such secrecy is unacceptable. What possible harm can come from public
disclosure? The commission's ``notice and comment'' procedure is
intended to allow an informed debate about these important issues of
public policy, but in this case the agency used its procedures to keep
the public in the dark.
Even with incomplete information, the public reaction against the
proposed changes has been unique in the history of the FCC. The
commission received nearly three quarters of a million comments, and
over 99.9 percent of them opposed the increase in media consolidation.
As a result, a wide variety of organizations--including civil rights
groups, churches, family values groups, and labor unions--have called
on the FCC to reconsider the proposal. The National Rifle Association,
the National Organization for Women, and many others expressed grave
doubt about the wisdom of allowing greater consolidation. Nevertheless,
the FCC approved the new rules.
I urge my colleagues to send a clear message today to the commission
and the public by nullifying these rules and reversing this misguided
decision the commission to support the interest of media conglomerates
and ignore the public interest.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a
joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the
Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to
loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the
Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve
our national goals of diversity, competition and localism.
Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this
standard.
The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to
change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45
percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in
television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation
as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across
the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a
national network, independent voices are lost in the media marketplace.
Locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to
local needs, interests and values than those stations owned and
operated by national networks. Indeed many local stations are small
businesses that drive innovative competition. A system of concentrated
station ownership will trend toward nationalized programming aimed
primarily at maximizing revenue with less concern for local interests
and less room for competition.
The resolution before us today will also reverse the FCC's decision
to significantly loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast
stations and newspapers within single markets. The cross-ownership rule
is intended to increase or at least maintain the number of independent
editorial voices in a community. This is especially important in
smaller communities where citizens have fewer media operations covering
local matters. While there is scant evidence that weakening this rule
will result in significant economic benefit, leading academics and
media experts have argued that doing so will dangerously reduce the
venues for independent public discourse.
I am also concerned with the process by which the FCC conducted these
proceedings. This media ownership rulemaking is among the most
important the FCC has undertaken, and it has garnered unprecedented
public interest. Despite this, the Commission moved forward with
dramatic rule changes without first taking public comment on a specific
proposal. The Commission's outreach was simply insufficient. All
parties concerned would have been better served if the Commission
published a specific proposal and then allowed for a period of public
comment before promulgating any rule changes.
The Commission's first responsibility is to ensure diversity,
competition and localism. The Commission has no responsibility to
facilitate the business plans of the major networks or any other narrow
economic interest. I strongly support the disapproval resolution before
us today.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission's
rules pertaining to media ownership have long served a vital function,
helping to ensure a diversity of viewpoints in the media marketplace.
The FCC's attempt to undo these important rules that have served us so
well is misguided and harmful. The FCC's 35 percent cap on national
audience reach has not only served to promote diversity, it also
protects local programming, allowing it to reflect local values and
preferences. If the cap is increased to 45 percent we can be sure that
major networks will meet or exceed the new threshold, as some companies
have done under the current standards, allowing for the acquisition of
local stations while eliminating the unique choices that local
programming can provide.
I am also concerned about the FCC's effort to remove the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership limitations in 80 percent of all media
markets. Currently, cross-ownership rules prevent a single corporation
from becoming too powerful a voice in a given community. Lifting the
cross-ownership ban will leave many communities reliant on one company
to decide what they are able to see and hear.
There are those who argue that the increase in the number of media
outlets has obviated the need for such rules. The reality, of course,
debunks this notion. While the number of media outlets has increased,
ownership has become more concentrated. What's more, many of the
largest new media outlets appear to be owned and controlled by the same
conglomerates that control traditional media.
In light of these facts, it seems illogical that the FCC would
exacerbate a disturbing trend that is transforming the marketplace of
ideas into little more than a corporate superstore. A recent, troubling
tendency of the large media companies was highlighted in The Wall
Street Journal this week in an article noting these companies' rapid
acquisitions of cable channels to ``re-create the old programming
oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era. The numbers tell the story. Of the
top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media
companies, according to The Wall Street Journal article of September
15, 2003.
[[Page S11514]]
The unsettling statistics extend to other communications branches as
well. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the number of owners
of commercial radio stations has declined by approximately 25 percent
since 1996. Even more alarming is the fact that since 1995, ``the
number of entities owning commercial TV stations has dropped by 40
percent.''
I welcome and strongly encourage the emergence and proliferation of
new and different platforms for news and information. We can expect
that more and more Americans will gain access to and will use these
resources. In our democratic society, there still are good and sound
reasons for encouraging and protecting the diversity of viewpoints
available in more traditional media. The FCC--to which the American
people have entrusted some of this responsibility--should be working to
diversify, not homogenize, the news and information media available to
the American public.
I ask the Wall Street Journal article of September 15, 2003, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 15, 2003]
How Media Giants Are Reassembling the Old Oligopoly
(By Martin Peers)
Two years ago, Mattel Inc. gave CBS a choice. The network
had refused to broadcast the toymaker's movie ``Barbie in the
Nutcracker'' in prime time. So Mattel threatened to pull
millions of dollars of advertising from the Nickelodeon cable
channel--owned by CBS parent Viacom Inc.
Viacom, which had spent a decade bulking up with
acquisitions, now wielded its new clout, according to people
familiar with the situation. If Mattel made good on its
threat, Viacom said, it would be blacklisted from advertising
on any Viacom property--a wide swath of media turf that also
includes MTV, VH-1, BET, a radio broadcasting empire and even
billboards. Mattel backed down, and the Barbie movie ended up
running during a less-desirable daytime period.
Neither company will comment on the scrape, but Viacom says
Mattel remains a ``valued advertising partner.'' More
generally, President Mel Karmazin in an interview is blunt
about his company's strategy: ``You find it very difficult to
go to war with one piece of Viacom without going to war with
all of Viacom.''
Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable
channels because they're one of the few entertainment outlets
generating strong revenue growth these days. More broadly,
the media giants have discovered that owning both broadcast
and cable outlets provides powerful new leverage over
advertisers and cable and satellite-TV operators. The
goliaths are using this advantage to wring better fees out of
the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring
those operators into carrying new and untried channels.
They're also finding ways to coordinate promotions across
their different holdings.
Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General
Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach
more than 50% of the prime-time TV audience through their
combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total rises to 80%
if you include the parents of newer networks--such as News
Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB--and NBC's pending
acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, estimates
Tom Wolzien, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old
programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr.
Wolzien, a former executive at NBC. Of the top 25 cable
channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media
companies.
The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable
channels is ``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says
Bob Wright, chairman of NBC, which two weeks ago signed a
preliminary agreement to acquire Vivendi Universal's USA and
Sci Fi cable channels, along with the Universal film studio,
bolstering a stable of cable channels that includes
Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC.
For the past several years, Viacom and other media
companies have pressed the Federal Communications Commission
to relax restriction on owning local TV station. One of their
main arguments: Their audience is shrinking as cable booms
and the TV audience fragments. The original three broadcast
networks now capture only 33.7% of the prime-time television
audience, down from 69.3% in 1985-86. Cable now boasts a
49.3% share, compared with 7.5% in the mid-'80s, according to
a Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau analysis of data from
Nielsen Media Research.
But with the wave of consolidation and the increased reach
of the media giants, some cable systems are fighting to keep
restrictions on TV-station ownership in place. Cox
Enterprises, parent of the fourth-biggest cable operator, Cox
Communications, has argued that the big broadcasters are
abusing protections granted them under federal law. The
broadcasters, Cox argues, are using those protections to
charge cable systems more for their cable channels. Cox and
others have complained to the FCC that media companies make
them accept less-popular cable channels in exchange for
carrying their broadcast networks.
Media companies counter that their consolidation only puts
them on a level playing field with cable operators, who are
themselves merging into giants. Comcast Corp.'s acquisition
of AT&T Corp.'s cable division last year gave it a reach of
more than 21 million homes, for instance, almost 30% of homes
served by cable. Comcast has already begun to tell cable
channels it wants to save money on what it pays for
programming, setting the scene for increasingly contentious
negotiations with big media companies.
``There has been so much consolidation'' among the
distributors that ``unless you are equally big . . . you risk
a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says Viacom
President Karmazin.
following the money
In buying up cable channels, the media conglomerates are
simply following the money. The music business is shrinking
rapidly as piracy eats into sales. Universal Music Group, the
world's biggest, is now thought to be valued at $5 billion to
$6 billion, less than half what it was a few years ago. The
film business is volatile, with a quarter's performance
dependent on whether movies bomb or not. The publishing
business is steady but grows at a slow pace. Broadcast
television's audience is shrinking, and its business model is
entirely dependent on advertising revenue, a cyclical
business.
Cable channels are gushing cash because they generate
revenue from two sources--subscriptions and advertising. The
subscriptions don't come directly from customers, but through
cable-TV services, which operate the vast array of wires and
pipelines connected to homes, and through satellite-TV
services that beam the signal. For the right to carry the
programming on their systems, these cable-operating companies
pay a range of monthly fees, from 26 cents a subscriber for
VH-1 to more than $2 for ESPN. These fees, for the most part,
increase every year, providing a steadily rising annuity for
the channel owners.
As cable viewership has increased, so has advertising.
Since 1980, cable-channel ad revenue has risen from
practically nothing to $10.8 billion in 2002, according to
the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau. Some channels,
meanwhile, are cashing in on strong brand names. Nickelodeon,
for one, is a merchandising powerhouse, with products
including Dora the Explorer backpacks and SpongeBob
SquarePants videogames.
The result has been an explosion in profits. MTV earned
just $54 million in 1989, estimates Kagan World Media, but is
expected to make more than 10 times that much this year. QVC,
the home shopping channel, generates so much money that
Liberty Media recently agreed to buy full ownership of the
channel at a value of about $14 billion--the same value put
on all of Vivendi Universal's film and TV assets.
Cable channels' surging profits have transformed the bottom
lines of their parent companies. E.W. Scripps Co., the 125-
year-old Cincinnati newspaper publisher and TV-station owner,
now relies on its cable division for much of its profit
growth. In 1994, Scripps launched the Home and Garden channel
on the initiative of a TV executive, Ken Lowe, amid
widespread skepticism. One Scripps newspaper publisher
approached Mr. Lowe at the time to complain ``a lot of the
cash that I'm making here is being shipped to you . . . You
better know what you're doing,'' Mr. Lowe recalls.
Nine years later, HGTV has become one of the most popular
cable channels with shows such as ``Design on a Dime'' and
``House Hunters.'' Scripps added a controlling stake to the
Food Network in 1997. In the second quarter of this year, the
impact of cable channels, including the Home and Garden
channel and the Food Network, was clear; Newspaper and
broadcast-TV profits both fell, while cable-channel profit
jumped 70%, helping Scripps's net profit more than double.
Scripps stock is trading near its 52-week high of $90.65, up
almost 30% for the past 12 months.
The publisher who had complained about the cable-channel
investment recently thanked Mr. Lowe, now Scripps's CEO,
noting that the rise in Scripps's stock price would put his
three children through college, Mr. Lowe says.
Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have
changed hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion
acquisition of ESPN's parent, Capital Cities/ABC, and Time
Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of CNN parent Turner
Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995. In 2001,
Disney bought the Family channel from News Corp. for $5.2
billion.
Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion, CBS, owner of
the Nashville Network (now Spike TV) and Country Music
Television, itself was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime
parent, Viacom. Viacom has since added channels such as BET
and Comedy Central.
Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the
company's broadcast and cable outlets reach 26% of the
nation's viewers in prime time, a significantly bigger share
than any other company. Having such a big market share is
``real important for lots of reasons, in terms of dealing
with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told investors.
[[Page S11515]]
Ad sales and marketing executives from the CBS and MTV
Networks divisions meet regularly to share information and
plot cross-promotional opportunities. In January 2001, MTV
staged the halftime show for the Super Bowl, which was
broadcast on CBS, featuring performances from Aerosmith and
Britney Spears.
Last fall, CBS helped stem a slide in young women viewers
of its reality blockbuster series ``Survivor'' with a
documentary on the series that ran repeatedly on MTV before
the new season of Survivor premiered. The premiere episode of
``Survivor'' on CBS saw a 25% jump in its young female
audience, says George Schweitzer, executive vice president of
marketing for CBS. CBS promoted its sitcom ``King of Queens''
through a special last Friday on Viacom's Comedy Central
cable channel.
protecting one another
The broadcast and cable sides of Viacom generally don't try
to sell ads jointly, but the common ownership allows them to
protect each other's flanks. At a presentation to advertisers
last spring, MTV executives compared the audience reach for
most of MTV Networks with ABC, NBC, Fox and WB--but CBS's
figures weren't included in the breakdown, so that MTV didn't
siphon ads from its corporate cousin.
Meanwhile, Disney's ownership of both ABC and ESPN allows
it to spread out the cost of expensive sports packages such
as its deals with the National Football League and the
National Basketball Association. ABC Sports is, in fact,
overseen by the same executive who runs ESPN, George
Bodenheimer, and the two operations regularly promote each
other's programming and share talent.
Joint ownership of cable and broadcast is particularly
valuable in negotiations with cable operators. A 1992 law
allows broadcasters to regularly renegotiate the price for
carrying TV stations' signal on cable. While broadcasters
could charge a cash fee, they usually offer the broadcast
stations free in exchange for carrying a new cable channel
they've launched. Few viewers would subscribe to cable if
ABC, CBS or NBC weren't on the channel line-up, so the cable
operators have little leverage.
The strategy lets broadcasters add more cable channels,
including many narrowly focused networks. Since 1993, big
media companies have launched at least 35 new cable channels
by bartering the right to carry their broadcast stations,
estimates George Callard, an attorney with Cinnamon Mueller,
a law firm that is counsel to the American Cable Association.
Using such a strategy, cable operators say, Disney has
shoehorned its Soapnet cable channel, which features reruns
of soaps such as ``General Hospital,'' into services reaching
33 million homes. Disney argues that fewer than half of those
homes have the channel as a result of a barter arrangement.
Cox Enterprises complained in a filing with the FCC in
January that Cox Communications has to agree to carry Soapnet
nationally in exchange for the right to offer ABC stations in
just a few of its markets. A Disney spokesman says Cox is a
``savvy negotiator'' that ``wouldn't have signed the deal
unless they found value in it.''
Catalina Cable, a cable-TV operator on Catalina Island off
the California coast, has only 1,449 customers. Ralph Morrow,
Catalina's owner, says he was asked to carry Soapnet when he
tried to renew his right to carry a Disney ABC affiliate for
the beginning of 2000. He says he suggested paying cash for
ABC instead. Disney's response was that the cash fee for ABC
would be ``really high,'' he says. ``They made it clear to
me'' that he didn't have that option ``at a reasonable
price.'' A Disney spokesman says Mr. Morrow mischaracterized
its offer, noting that Disney offers operators ``multiple
options, including a stand-alone cash offer which we believe
to be a fair offer and fair value.''
Mr. Morrow, who says he doesn't see the need for a soap-
opera channel, now pays Disney 11 cents a subscriber for
Soapnet. Disney responds that surveys of viewers have shown
Soapnet to be popular. The channel drew 97,000 viewers in
July and August, according to Nielsen. In the same period,
HGTV--which is available in about two and a half times as
many homes--averaged 457,000 viewers.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
resolution. I say this as someone who is unhappy with the core aspects
of the FCC's ruling. I disagree with the move to lift the 35 percent
national television viewership cap. I believe the 35 percent ceiling
has served us well in preserving the goals of competition, localism,
and diversity.
However, the decision was extremely comprehensive and complicated and
included some changes which I do favor. For example, I strongly support
the Commission's approach to ease the ill-advised restrictions on
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. The empirical data from the
newspaper/broadcast station combinations that were grandfathered in
shows that this has allowed for a greater diversity of voices.
Miles City in my home State of Montana provides a vivid example.
KATL-AM and the Miles City Star are one such operation. Each operates
autonomously and KATL provides valuable local news coverage to the
area. Through the pooling of resources, smaller stations which might
not be viable are able to maintain their economic health and continue
to serve the local community.
Again, I reiterate my strong opposition to the FCC's decision to lift
the national broadcast ownership cap to 45 percent from 35 percent. If
the major networks are allowed to own even more of their affiliate
stations, local concerns will have less of a role in shaping what
programming makes it on the air.
Affiliate stations that are independently owned may choose, from time
to time, to preempt network programming that they believe does not
conform to the mores of their local communities. That is localism. I
guarantee that the local views of the citizens of Butte, MT differ from
those of the citizens in New York City. Independently owned stations
are answerable only to local demands. So, if the station owners feel
certain programming doesn't reflect their local community values, they
keep it off the air.
Not only will lifting the cap mean that stations are less likely to
preempt programming, but it also means that there will be less local
input into the composition of network schedules. As the networks own
more and more of their affiliates, the independently owned affiliates
will lose negotiating leverage. In short, you'll see programming
decisions made more and more in Los Angeles and New York, instead of in
local markets.
We already raised the national television cap in 1996 from 25 percent
to 35 percent. It would be premature to raise it again so soon.
I fully understand the sentiment that lead to this resolution. I
agree with the concerns of many of my colleagues, particularly on the
television cap. However, this is not the way to go about it.
The Commerce Committee upon which I serve--has moved to protect the
national broadcast cap. I also serve on the Appropriations Committee
and the Commerce, Justice, State bill for this year includes a measure
to protect the 35 percent cap. I support these moves, which target
individual rule changes, rather than the resolution being considered
today, which rolls back the entire decision.
Again, I emphasize I am not happy with the FCC ruling. But I don't
think the answer is to wipe out every aspect of the FCC ruling with one
single vote. If we are going to get it right, we need to look at each
regulation and each issue individually. Let's not throw out the baby
with the bathwater.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I control the time.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield to
me?
Mr. McCAIN. We have been going back and forth, and I will yield to
the other side and then yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J.
Res. 17, the joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the
Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media
ownership.
I reviewed the press release the FCC issued on June 2 to announce its
changes to the ownership rules. The press release was entitled, ``FCC
Sets Limits on Media Concentration.'' The problem with that press
release was that the FCC did not set limits; it virtually abolished
them. A majority of the FCC commissioners capitulated to an industry
they no longer hold at arms' length.
I say capitulated because I read that FCC commissioners and other
agency officials have taken more than 2,500 trips valued at $2.8
million since 1995, paid for by the industry the FCC is supposed to
regulate. How ``arm's length'' is that?
As an aside, I am heartened that the FCC reauthorization bill the
Commerce Committee report puts an end to industry-sponsored travel for
FCC Commissioners and staff.
[[Page S11516]]
With respect to the ownership rules, it was regrettable that FCC
Chairman Michael Powell saw fit to hold one and only one public hearing
on the subject.
And it was regrettable that Chairman Powell appeared to be willing to
talk with industry officials and the press about the proposed rule
changes, but not with the Commerce Committee, until the rule was
issued.
It was regrettable that the FCC officials went to great lengths to
point out that the agency received nearly one million comments and
constituent post cards on the rule changes, and then chose to disregard
the vast majority of them.
It is regrettable that the so-called ``diversity index'' cited as
justification for further deregulation cannot be used in a petition to
determine if companies are violating ownership limits.
It is particularly regrettable that three of the five Commissioners
apparently feel that news is just another commodity, like shoes or
cars.
News is not just another commodity, except to the media barons who
stand to benefit most from the FCC rule changes.
Here is what Lowry Mays, the founder and CEO of Clear Channel, had to
say in Fortune magazine recently:
We're not in the business of providing news and information
. . . We're simply in the business of selling our customers
products.
Remember, this is the man whose company owns over 1,200 radio
stations with some 110 million listeners spread across all 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
So much for the public interest.
Over the years, Congress established media ownership rules to ensure
that the public would have access to a wide range of news, information,
programming, and political perspectives. Over the years, the courts
have repeatedly recognized the public interest goals of diversity,
competition, and localism.
Consolidating media ownership means that a few large corporations can
exercise considerable control over the news.
Is it really in the public interest to make it easier for a few
companies to dominate the airwaves and determine what news the American
people will, or will not hear?
As the distinguished jurist Learned Hand remarked in 1942, ``The hand
that rules the press, the radio, the screen, and the far-spread
magazine rules the country.''
I am the only member of the Commerce Committee from the New York
metropolitan area. In my back yard, News Corp. already owns two VHF
broadcast stations, a daily newspaper, a broadcast network, a movie
studio, a satellite service, and four cable networks. Under the new
rules the FCC issued, News Corp. will be able to add another TV station
and own a total of eight radio stations. And do not forget: News Corp.
is gobbling up DirecTV.
That is not diversity. That is not ``fair and balanced.''
At a Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership, Mel Karmazin of
Viacom argued that ``Americans are bombarded with media choices via
technology never dreamed of even a decade ago, much less 60 years
ago.''
That is true, but misleading. Who owns these media? Viacom owns CBS
and UPN; 35 television stations that reach 40 percent of the national
viewing audience; Paramount Studios; and cable channels such as VH1,
MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and Showtime.
Viacom, through Infinity Broadcasting, also owns 185 radio stations
and has substantial ownership interests in several Internet properties,
including CBS.com and CBSMarketwatch.com. Viacom even owns Blockbuster,
so it has a significant stake in video and DVD rentals.
It should be self-evident that consolidating media ownership would
make it possible for a few large corporations to exercise considerable
control over the news.
Media giants also exert enormous control over advertisers. I received
a letter last month from Neil Faber, president of NexGen Media, a
company that specializes in national and spot broadcasting, print, and
outdoor media buys. He wrote:
For decades I have been deeply concerned with this
direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This
concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher
advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed
on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products
or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints.
New York Times columnist William Safire summed up the problem and
what is at stake in a May 22 column. He wrote:
The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via
broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and
bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. . . The
concentration of power--political, corporate, media,
cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion
of power through local control, thereby encouraging
individual participation, is the essence of federalism and
the greatest expression of democracy.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to
conduct a biennial review of the rule changes the Act contained. Given
the complexity of the issue, a biennial review was overly ambitious.
Be that as it may, Chairman Powell said during the biennial review
that led up to the rule changes proposed in June, ``Getting it right is
more important than just getting it done.'' He said that, but then he
did the opposite. The FCC got it done, but did not get it right.
Getting it right means serving the public interest, not increasing
ownership concentration and boosting profitability for a few companies'
share-holders.
I hope the Senate will pass this joint resolution to send a strong,
unequivocal message to the FCC that it got it wrong on June 2.
I ask Unanimous Consent that the letter I received from Neil Faber
and the May 22 op-ed by William Safire that appeared in the New York
Times be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NexGen Media Worldwide,
Incorporated,
August 8, 2003.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am the founder, President, and
Chief Executive Officer of NexGen Media Worldwide Inc., a
media company that specializes in the planning and execution
of media buys across virtually every medium, including
national and spot broadcasting, print, and outdoor. We have
been in business almost twenty-five years.
As both a media and advertising professional, as an Adjunct
Professor of Marketing at NYU for fifteen years, and as a
concerned citizen of the U.S. and the State of New Jersey, I
am responding to the recent article in The New York Times by
Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission on the subject of the FCC's decision that would
allow one company to own broadcast stations reaching up to
45% of the national market, an increase from the current cap
of 35%.
For decades, I have been deeply concerned with this
direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This
concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher
advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed
on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products
or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints.
It is certainly true that the U.S. has a diverse media
marketplace. It is in the spirit of maintaining this
diversity that we should avoid concentration of media in the
hands of the few. In the past, each local radio station in
most markets, as an example, was primarily run by separate
entities. While the number of stations is greater, the
ownership is by fewer companies. So, this results in fewer
independent sources of information (i.e., news, weather,
traffic), entertainment, and fewer diverse editorial
viewpoints. When one looks at television, the Television
Bureau of Advertising shows that from 1980 to the present,
the number of television stations available per home grew 8
fold. Yet, the average number of television stations that
viewers watch weekly increased by only 2\1/2\ times. So,
while station options have grown dramatically over this
period, relatively speaking, why did the number of stations
viewed increase at a dramatically disproportionately lower
rate? These facts strongly suggest that there should be more
independent outlets, more diversity, with greater freedom of
programming choices.
It is logical that even if each station in a corporate
structure were totally independently run, at some place in
this corporate hierarchy the general manager of each station
still reports to one or more top level corporate executives
whose major responsibilities include providing ``guidance''
to maximize the corporation's profits. This reality further
supports the contention that concentration of ownership also
tends to inflate advertising prices and limit editorial
viewpoints.
Mr. Powell writes that the major networks own a small
percentage of all television stations. The fact is, however,
that the stations owned by the networks include those in the
major markets that represent the lion's share of the audience
in both the local markets and nationally. Here, too,
concentration
[[Page S11517]]
of ownership presents a potential risk to independent and
diverse editorials and creates the framework for higher
advertising rates. This is analogous to what occurred in this
year's Network Television ``upfront'' marketplace in which
advertising prices skyrocketed in the area of approximately
15% to 20% despite an arguably weak economy. It is
interesting to note that the advertising dollars deployed for
the upfront were concentrated with just a few mega-media
buying services accounting for more than 75% of the
advertising spent with the networks.
As another example of how concentration of ownership can
adversely affect the capacity to effectively negotiate, look
at sports programming. It is true, as Mr. Powell states, that
many top sports programs have moved to cable and satellite.
But, the large media giants also own these outlets, i.e.,
more concentration. So when negotiating with these cable
companies, e.g., advertisers are, in reality, negotiating
with the same few media giants who control them.
We live in a free society. Limiting ownership and
concentrating media power cuts against the grain of free
society choice that is indigenous to our democracy.
Competition allows for choice and the ability to have greater
choice benefits both consumers and the advertising community.
This country needs to move towards more independent stations
in the future rather than continuing to concentrate media
ownership in the hands of the few. It is not whether we
should specifically increase the cap from 25% to 45%, it is
the direction to more concentration that needs to be
reversed.
Sincerely,
Neil Faber,
President.
____
[From the New York Times, May 22, 2003]
The Great Media Gulp
(By William Safire)
The future formation of American public opinion has fallen
into the lap of an ambitious 36-year-old lawyer whose name
you never heard. On June 2, after deliberations conducted
behind closed doors, he will decide the fate of media large
and small, print and broadcast. No other decision made in
Washington will more directly affect how you will be
informed, persuaded and entertained.
His name is Kevin Martin. He and his wife, Catherine, now
Vice President Dick Cheney's public affairs adviser, are the
most puissant young ``power couple'' in the capital. He is
one of three Republican members of the five-person Federal
Communications Commission, and because he recently broke
ranks with his chairman, Michael Powell (Colin's son), on a
telecom controversy, this engaging North Carolinian has
become the swing vote on the power play that has media moguls
salivating.
The F.C.C. proposal remains officially secret to avoid
public comment but has forced into the open by the two
commission Democrats. It would end the ban in most cities on
cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers,
allowing such companies as The New York Times, The Washington
Post and The Chicago Tribune to gobble up ever more
electronic outlets. It would permit Viacom, Disney and AOL
Time Warner to control TV stations with nearly half the
national audience. In the largest cities, it would allow
owners of ``only'' two TV stations to buy a third.
We've already seen what happened when the F.C.C. allowed
the monopolization of local radio: today three companies own
half the stations in America, delivering a homogenized
product that neglects local news coverage and dictates music
sales.
And the F.C.C. has abdicated enforcement of the ``public
interest'' requirement in issuing licenses. Time was,
broadcasters had to regularly reapply and show public-
interest programming to earn continuance; now they mail the
F.C.C. a postcard every eight years that nobody reads.
Ah, but aren't viewers and readers now blessed with a whole
new world of hot competition through cable and the Internet?
That's the shucks-we're-no-monopolists line that Rupert
Murdoch will take today in testimony before the pussycats of
John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee.
The answer is no. Many artists, consumers, musicians and
journalists know that such protestations of cable and
internet competition by the huge dominators of content and
communication are malarkey. The overwhelming amount of news
and entertainment comes via broadcast and print. Putting
those outlets in fewer and bigger hands profits the few at
the cost of the many.
Does that sound un-conservative? Not to me. The
concentration of power--political corporation, media,
cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion
of power through local control, thereby encouraging
individual participation, is the essence of federalism and
the greatest expression of democracy.
Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today?
Because the ownership of our means of communication is
shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals
than they realize resent the loss of local control and
community identity.
We opponents of megamergers and cross-ownership are
afflicted with what sociologists call ``pluralistic
ignorance.'' Libertarians pop off from what we assume to be
the fringes of the left and right wings, but not yet realize
that we outnumber the exponents of the new collective
efficiency.
That's why I march uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women
for Peach and the National Rifle Association, between liberal
Olympia Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens under the banner
of ``localism, competition and diversity of views.'' That's
why, too, we resent the conflicted refusal of most networks,
stations and their putative purchasers to report fully and in
prime time on their owners's power grab scheduled for June 2.
Most broadcasters of news act only on behalf of the
powerful broadcast lobby? Are they not obligated, in the
long-forgotten, ``public interest,'' to call to the attention
of viewers and readers the arrogance of a regulatory
commission that will not hold extended public hearings on the
most controversial decision in its history?
So much of our lives should not be in the hands of one
swing-vote commissioner. Let's debate this out in the open,
take polls, get the president on the record and turn up the
heat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this
resolution. By using the Congressional Review Act, which I worked on
and helped pass with my colleague and friend Senator Reid from Nevada,
we would totally throw out the entire FCC regulation. Some people
disagree with parts of the regulation, but we would be throwing out the
entire regulation.
The Senator from Arizona said let's do this the old-fashioned way.
Let's have hearings and mark up a bill so there is a bill that is going
through the authorizing committee and there is also some language going
through the Appropriations Committee. Maybe those are better and more
appropriate vehicles than the Congressional Review Act, which rejects
the entire regulation.
What about the cross ownership rules? Cross-ownership rules say if
one has a newspaper, they cannot own a TV station, or vice versa. Well,
unless they were grandfathered years ago, they could, but if they are
new in the business, they cannot own both. The ban on cross ownership
was modified on sound reasoning and solid evidence. The antiquated ban
should not be reinstated.
My colleague from Nevada, who is now presiding, said things have
changed. We now have thousands of radio stations. We have lots of
opportunities. We have new vehicles. We have the internet. We have
cable. We have lots of opportunities for people to get their news from
a variety of sources. If we throw out these rules, we are almost saying
we want to live by and maintain those old rules, which really are
archaic and do not work.
This is too Draconian of a measure, to throw out the regs in their
entirety. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. How much time is remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Republican side, 3 minutes 44 seconds.
On the Democratic side, there are 10 minutes 13 seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I do not view this issue as one
that is driven by ideological bias, but it is one which I think
deserves a great deal more consideration.
Again, I urge my colleagues, as busy and as crowded as our calendar
is, to bring up S. 1046 which has been reported out and is on the
calendar. That would give us time to fully debate and amend these very
complex and difficult issues. Therefore, I oppose the passage of CRA.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.
I have great respect for those who disagree with the position that I,
Senator Lott, and many others have taken on this issue, but the
resolution of disapproval, which is part of the Congressional Review
Act, is, in effect, a legislative veto. It is perfectly appropriate to
use it in this circumstance.
I will talk a little bit about why this bipartisan resolution is
important. First, it is acknowledged by everyone that we have had
galloping concentration in the broadcast industry in recent years. One
company now owns
[[Page S11518]]
well over 1,200 radio stations. The same is happening in television. I
do not happen to think big is always bad but I think the FCC's new
rules will just hasten the day when we have fewer and fewer companies
owning virtually all of the broadcast properties in this country.
So if one thinks that what the American people see, read, and hear
should be controlled by fewer and fewer people, then they would like
the FCC rules and they would want to oppose this resolution of
disapproval. But if they believe in localism, diversity, and
competition, which are the hallmarks of the reason we provide free
licenses and the free use of the airwaves to companies by which they
profit, in which we say to them they have responsibilities attached to
this license, localism, diversity, competition, if you believe those
enhance this country, enhance local areas or communities or counties or
States, then you are going to want to support this resolution of
disapproval.
A lot of our folks think the FCC has written rules that fundamentally
weaken our democracy. Our democracy is nourished by the free flow of
information, by localism, by competition. The fact is, three-quarters
of a million people sent their comments to the FCC saying: Don't do
this. It ranges from the National Rifle Association, National
Organization for Women, Walter Cronkite, Jesse Helms. This is a broad-
based group of American people who believe very strongly that what the
FCC has done is wrong.
The most dramatic rule changes in the history of broadcasting have
been embarked upon by the FCC with one hearing in Richmond, VA. They
concocted this rule that said: Oh, by the way, here is what we think
should happen. We believe it is all right, in the largest city in this
country, for one company to own the dominant newspaper, three
television stations, eight radio stations, and the cable company. And
the same company can do that in the largest city, the next largest
city, the next largest city, the next largest city.
It is not all right. We know better than that. Let me describe a
little of what is happening with this concentration. Perhaps you are
driving down the street in Salt Lake City listening to your car radio,
tuning the dial until you find a radio station you happen to enjoy, one
with good music, someone with a sonorous voice saying: Good morning in
Salt Lake City. It's sunny here. What a beautiful day outside. The sky
is blue.
And you think what a great announcer they have in Salt Lake City
when, in fact, that person may be broadcasting from a basement
broadcast booth in Baltimore, MD. It is called voice track. It is
called let's pretend. Let's pretend someone is broadcasting locally,
but instead that person is using the Internet information to say it is
sunny here in Salt Lake City, trying to make folks in Salt Lake City
believe they are broadcasting in Salt Lake City. ``Voice tracking''--
remember that term.
Central casting--it is the same approach in television. You like
that? You just take localism, take local interest out of broadcasting
and pretend it is local. If localism is unimportant, why do they even
have to pretend?
What about turning on your television set seeing people eating
maggots? Yes, you can see that on television. Maybe you don't like
seeing people eating maggots. Maybe you think seeing people eat a
cupful of maggots shoved in front of them--maybe you think that ought
not be shown in our community.
So you call the broadcaster, and you say I am going to complain about
this programming. How did you do this? Why would you show a program in
which people eat maggots?
And the broadcaster writes back--this happens to be a July 25 letter.
I won't use names:
We received your letter dated June 30, 2003, regarding the
content of the . . . show. . . .
We forwarded your letter to the . . . Network. The Network,
not [us], decides what shows go on the air here for the . . .
Owned and Operated Television Stations.
The network likes maggots. It comes to your hometown and you don't
have a choice, nor would a local broadcaster, and certainly not
affiliates, stations owned by the broadcaster. They are going to
broadcast it.
What has happened to localism? Dead? Wounded? Bleeding? If the FCC
has its way with this rule, it will be gone, just plain gone.
Is there a reason for us to be concerned? I think so. There is a
broad, bipartisan group of interests in the Senate using the
legislative veto to say let's say to the FCC: What you have done is
wrong.
Let me read a letter from our distinguished former colleague, Jesse
Helms, because, as always, he puts it very succinctly.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 13 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Jesse Helms wrote a letter to my colleague, Trent Lott.
Dear Trent:
Thank you for your leadership in trying to undo the
disaster created by the Federal Communications Commission's
new media ownership rules. These rules will benefit huge
conglomerates and no one else.
Let me point out, Senator Helms is one of the few people who served
in this Senate who came from a broadcast background.
Sometimes I think people in Washington, particularly at the
Commission, have forgotten that the FCC role is to preserve
localism, diversity, and competition. In no way are those
criteria supported by the recent FCC ruling. If the
commission fails, as it has, then Congress must step in. You
and Senator Dorgan have done that. I can think of no reason
to allow fewer companies to own more and more of the media.
Media ownership is a bipartisan issue that commands a close
review by Democrats and Republicans.
When your resolution comes to the Senate floor, I'll be
cheering for 51 votes.
It is signed by Jesse Helms, former U.S. Senator.
In this morning's newspaper, the FCC chairman, Mr. Powell, makes
comments about what we are doing here today. I happen to like Chairman
Powell. Personally, I think he is a good person. We have had a good
relationship. I think he has made a horrible mistake. His leadership on
this issue at the Federal Communications Commission, as I have said
previously, has led the Commission to cave in as quickly and as
completely to the special interests as anything I have ever seen.
Mr. Powell says ``the move in the Senate today'' referring to this
move ``is bordering on the absurd.''
I am sorry. There is nothing at all absurd about the Senate taking
direct aim at a rule by a Federal regulatory agency that is
wrongheaded, and saying we are going to veto this rule. There is
nothing absurd about that at all.
This Congress has the right under this legislation to do it. This has
been rarely used. It is the second occasion in which the Senate has
used this. We would only do it when a regulatory agency, issuing
regulations, has so starkly decided to misrepresent what is the public
interest.
The FCC is a regulatory body. One would expect them to wear striped
shirts and have a whistle and blow the whistle when it is needed on
behalf of the public interest, to stand up for the public interest. But
when regulatory agencies refuse to stand for the public interest, then
we must take action.
My colleague, Senator McCain, talks about S. 1046. I am a cosponsor
of that legislation. I support it very strongly. I hope the Senate will
pass that as well. I will only observe that this resolution of
disapproval will run into some whitewater rapids when it comes to the
House. I understand that. So, too, would S. 1046 if it gets to the
House of Representatives.
The fact is, we ought to in every conceivable way avoid the problems
that will come from these rules. My colleagues and others have talked
about the problem of growing concentration in the media. It is getting
worse, not better. The worst possible result, in my judgment, would be
to say let's just let the FCC rules go into effect.
A Federal circuit court has already issued a stay. They understand
that the American people were not given the opportunity in the hearing,
the one hearing that existed in Richmond, VA. The case has not been
made for this FCC rule. So we have a stay at the Federal court.
A reasonable step and a thoughtful step on behalf of this Senate is
to stand up this morning for the public interest and say to the FCC:
You had a responsibility and you failed. We have every right under the
Congressional Review
[[Page S11519]]
Act to enact, this morning, a resolution of disapproval. I hope
sufficient numbers of my colleagues will join me, will join Senator
Lott, and others, in a strong bipartisan resolution to say we don't
like what the FCC has done. We think it is not at all in support of the
public interest. We believe it undermines this democracy which rests on
the free flow of information. We believe we ought to disapprove of this
rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the request of the leadership, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is
absent because of a death in the family.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden
NAYS--40
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Warner
NOT VOTING--5
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Leahy
Smith
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 17) was passed, as follows:
S. J. Res. 17
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications
Commission relating to broadcast media ownership (Report and
Order FCC 03-127, received by Congress on July 10, 2003), and
such rule shall have no force or effect.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________